c^ 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


FAMOUS  SPEECHES 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/famousspeechesOOpaul 


Famous  Speeches 


SELECTED      AND      EDITED, 
WITH    INTRODUCTORY    NOTES 

BY 

HERBERT    PAUL 

Author  of  **The  Life  of  Froude,"  etc. 


(SECOND  SERIES) 


BOSTON 

LITTLE,  BROWN,  AND  COMPANY 

igi2 


CONTENTS 


PACK 


PREFATORY  NOTE       ...  .         .         .       ix 

INTRODUCTION xi 

LORD  MACAULAY 

Editor's  Note .1 

The  Government  of  India,  House  of  Commons, 
July  10th.  1833 1 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Editor's  Note 35 

First  Inaugural  Address,  March  4th,  1861.         .       36 

LORD  DERBY 

Editor's  Note 46 

Second  Reading  of  the  Corn  Importation  Bill, 
House  of  Lords,  May  25th,  1846      ...      47 

LORD   BEACONSFIELD 

Editor's  Note 96 

Reply  in  Defence  of  his  Budget,  December  16th, 
1852 .96 

ARCHBISHOP  MAGEE 
Editor's  Note       .         .         .....     133 

The  Disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church.         .     134 

CHARLES  STEWART  PARNELL 

Editor's  Note 158 

The  First  Home  Rule  Bill,  June  7th,  1886  .         .     159 


t)0 


vi  CONTENTS 

PACE 

MR.  GLADSTONE 
Editor's  Note       .......     175 

Reply  on  the  Second  Reading  of  the  Irish 
Church  Bill,  1869 175 

THE   DUKE   OF   ARGYLL 
Editor's  Note       .......     197 

The  Eastern  Question  :  Address  in  Answer  to 
the  Queen's  Speech  in  1877      .         .         .         .     198 

JAMES   RUSSELL  LOWELL 

Editor's  Note 204 

Democracy  :  Inaugural  Address  on  Assuming 
the  Presidency  of  the  Birmingham  and  Mid- 
land Institute,  Birmingham,  England,  October 
6th,  1884 205 

LORD   RANDOLPH   CHURCHILL 
Editor's  Note       .......     225 

Policy  of  Lord  Salisbury's  Second  Ministry, 
Dartford,  October  2nd,  1886   .         .         .         .226 

LORD   LYTTON 

Editor's  Note 244 

The  Abandonment  of  Candahar,  House  of  Lords, 
January  10th,  1881 245 

LORD   SALISBURY 

Editor's  Note 262 

Speech  at  Newport,  in  Monmouthshire,  October 
8th,  1885 263 

SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

Editor's  Note 285 

Second  Reading  of  the  Budget  Bill,  1894  .         .     286 


CONTENTS  vii 


PACB 


THE   DUKE   OF   DEVONSHIRE 

Editor's  Note 305 

The  Home  Rule  Bill  of  1886      ....     306 

JOSEPH   ARCH 

Editor's  Note 325 

Debate  on  the  Question  of  Allotments,  January 
26th,  1886 325 

MR.  CHAMBERLAIN 
Editor's  Note       .......     331 

Government  of  Ireland  Bill,  April  9th,  1886        .     331 

LORD   MORLEY 
Speech  in  the  Town  Hall  at  Rochdale,  after  the 
Statue  of  John  Bright  had  been  Unveiled,  on 
the  24th  of  October,  1891        ....     356 

LORD   ROSEBERY 
At  the  Free  Trade  Hall,  Manchester,  on  the 

1st  of  November,  1897 367 

The    Manchester    Chamber    of    Commerce  :     An 

Historical  Retrospect      .....     367 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

The  proprietors  of  the  Times  have  kindly  given  permission 
for  the  reproduction  of  Lord  Salisbury's  speech  at  Newport. 
I  am  indebted  to  Messrs.  Macmillan  for  leave  to  reprint  Mr. 
Lowell's  address  on  Democracy;  to  Messrs.  Longman  for 
DisraeU's  Budget  speech,  and  Lord  Randolph  Churchill's 
speech  at  Dartford ;  to  the  Cobden  Club  for  Lord  Rosebery's 
address  at  the  Free  Trade  Hall  in  Manchester,  and  to  Lord 
Morley  for  his  speech  on  John  Bright.  In  eight  of  the  other 
speeches  the  text  of  Hansard  has  been  followed. 


INTRODUCTION 

Parliamentary  Government  in  England  has  always  been 
accompanied  by  the  continuous  discussion  of  political  subjects 
both  at  Westminster  and  elsewhere.  The  very  fact  that  three 
distinct  and  separate  Legislatures  became  by  degrees  the 
Parhament  of  the  United  Kingdom  has  brought  into  prominence 
the  combination  of  local  with  general  interests  which  forms 
the  staple  of  our  pohtical  controversies.  That,  however,  by 
no  means  exhausts  the  range  of  questions  with  which  these 
pages  deal.  Foreign  policy  has  played  a  considerable  part 
in  the  history  of  British  development.  Although  Ministers  are 
in  the  first  instance  responsible  for  the  conduct  of  foreign  affairs, 
the  fact  that  they  must  render  an  account  to  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  in  the  last  resort  to  the  country,  brings  every 
part  of  our  relations  with  other  Powers  within  the  scope  and 
range  of  pohtical  debate.  The  gradual  and  enormous  growth 
of  the  British  Empire  has  added  another  set  of  topics,  vast, 
varied,  and  yet  mutually  connected,  to  the  list  with  which 
politicians  are  concerned.  It  sometimes  seems  to  be  forgotten 
that  Parliament  theoretically  possesses  the  right  of  legislating 
for  the  whole  of  the  King's  dominions.  The  practical  exercise 
of  such  a  right  is  only  possible  under  conditions  which  make 
it  little  more  than  nominal.  But  it  survives  in  the  form  of 
making  the  affairs  of  the  Empire  matter  of  public  and  Par- 
liamentary interest  as  no  purely  foreign  questions  could  be. 
Thus  the  extent  of  our  pohtics  has  constantly  widened,  and 
Parliament,  which  is  the  centre  of  political  action,  has  enlarged 
the  scope  of  its  interests  far  beyond  the  range  of  its  actual 
authority.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  how  this  process  has 
developed  through  almost  imperceptible  steps  from  the  begin- 
nings of  Parliament  to  the  present  time.  The  several  stages 
of  enlargement  can  scarcely  be  distinguished.     What  plainly 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

appears  is  that  the  process  has  been  continuous,  and  that  no 
limit  can  be  fixed  at  which  it  must  come  to  an  end. 

There  is  a  contrast,  as  well  as  a  resemblance,  between  good 
speeches  of  different  kinds.  For  example,  some  illustrate 
chiefly  the  glory  of  words,  the  power  of  language  to  express 
and  embroider  thought.  This  class  of  oratory  does  not  concern 
itself  directly  with  persuasion  or  conviction.  Its  object  is 
artistic,  rather  then  practical.  The  orator  and  his  audience 
exercise  a  mutual  influence.  For  one  is  as  necessary  as  the 
other  to  the  success  of  the  effort.  The  speaker,  moreover,  has 
the  advantage  of  being  able  to  test  the  progress  of  his  endeav- 
ours, and  to  watch  their  result  as  he  continues.  He  must 
feel  the  pulse  of  his  audience  and,  as  he  proceeds,  he  must 
respond  to  the  signs  which  he  observes  in  them.  It  is  part 
of  the  difficulty  belonging  to  the  choice  of  speeches  for  publica- 
tion that  they  are  not  primarily  meant  to  be  read.  There 
are,  however,  exceptions  to  this  rule.  The  House  of  Com- 
mons did  not  listen  to  Burke.  He  often  addressed  empty 
benches,  and  yet  he  is  now  reckoned  as  among  the  greatest 
orators  of  all  time.  Macaulay's  speeches  are  still  read  as 
models  of  pungent  and  powerful  rhetoric.  Although  he 
certainly  did  not  lack  eager  and  attentive  listeners,  as 
well  opponents  as  friends,  his  speeches  were  criticised  as 
smelling  of  the  lamp.  Yet  two  of  them  are  known  to  have 
changed  votes.  Both  these  distinguished  men  did  undoubtedly 
think  of  the  future,  even  when  they  spoke  upon  the  imme- 
diate topics  of  the  day.  A  speech  which  affects  policy  is  an 
interesting  historical  event.  A  speech  which  can  always  be 
read  with  pleasure  is  a  literary  masterpiece.  To  impose  this 
double  qualification  in  all  cases  is  impracticable.  It  would 
shut  out  more  than  half  the  most  famous  speeches  of  the  world. 
Those  which  comply  with  either  test  are  worthy  to  be  kept 
in  remembrance  as  illustrations  of  what  the  human  voice  can 
achieve  in  moulding  the  thoughts  of  the  race,  and  shaping  the 
destinies  of  mankind. 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

Although  very  few  speeches  produce  an  immediate  result, 
it  is  a  fallacy  to  assume  that  the  others  have  no  result  at  all. 
Persuasion  is  a  gradual  process,  and  it  is  through  long 
controversy  that  general  conclusions  are  reached.  The 
power  of  touching  the  emotions  may  be  the  supreme 
test  of  eloquence.  But  that  is  the  kind  of  eloquence  which 
must  be  heard,  because  it  cannot  be  transmitted  by  any  report. 
The  oratory  which  survives  the  speaker,  and  can  be  appre- 
ciated for  its  arguments,  or  its  phrases,  is  the  only  class  that  can 
be  embodied  in  a  collection  like  this.  The  speeches  chosen 
should  be  such  as  show  the  best  and  the  most  numerous 
points  of  contact  between  ideas  and  words.  How  do  public 
speakers  exercise  an  influence  upon  public  affairs  ?  That  is 
the  real  question  which  a  volume  of  speeches  ought  to  answer. 
Different  as  the  orators  are,  and  various  as  are  the  topics  with 
which  they  deal,  the  speeches  all  help  to  explain  the  relation 
between  the  mental  inference  and  the  spoken  word.  A  great 
deal  must  depend,  not  only  upon  the  man,  but  also  upon  the 
time  and  circumstance.  There  are  occasions  when  energy 
and  enthusiasm,  clothed  in  picturesque  language,  carry  every- 
thing before  them.  There  are  others  when  convincing  argu- 
ment, expressed  with  cogent  lucidity,  may  be  the  turning 
point  of  a  controversy,  or  a  debate.  Then,  again,  there  are 
addresses  which  succeed  in  planting  upon  the  minds  of  the 
audience  a  new  and  permanent  conception  of  a  hackneyed 
or  famiUar  truth.  Thus  adaptability  is  an  important  charac- 
teristic of  the  speaking  which  really  tells.  Not  that  every 
speaker  is  adapted  to  every  opportunity.  The  late  Duke 
of  Devonshire,  for  instance,  never  inspired,  or  attempted 
to  inspire,  enthusiasm.  He  was  only  effective  when  straight- 
forward reasoning,  expressed  with  plain  and  simple  vigour, 
appealed  to  the  audience  of  the  time.  Disraeli,  on  the  other 
hand,  had  the  gift  of  bringing  ridicule  to  bear  upon  controversy, 
and  of  strengthening  his  own  case  by  a  caricature  of  the  views 
put  forward  on  the  other  side.      Gladstone  excelled  in  the 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

difficult  art  of  combining  general  and  comprehensive  views 
with  specific  defence  of  his  own  proposals  wherever  they  were 
criticised  or  attacked.  It  was  in  this  fusion  of  the  general 
with  the  particular,  this  union  of  large  principles  with  precise 
and  accurate  details,  that  his  power  chiefly  consisted. 

That  speaking  has  for  some  time  tended  to  become  more 
practical  few  would  dispute.  But  there  may  be  quite  as  much 
art  in  practical  speaking  as  in  any  other.  An  argument  may 
be  put  in  an  almost  infinite  variety  of  ways,  and  yet  there 
must  always  be  a  way  which  is  best  suited  to  a  particular 
audience  at  a  given  time  and  place.  Now  that  the  habit  of 
public  speaking  is  more  widely  diffused  than  it  ever  was  before, 
it  is  natural  that  variety  of  methods  should  also  multiply. 
Comparison  will  show  how  different  are  the  modes  of  explana- 
tion and  illustration,  of  attack  and  defence,  to  which  modern 
orators  have  recourse.  One  thing,  however,  is  clearly  dis- 
cernible in  most  modem  speeches,  and  that  is  what  may  be 
called  their  comparative  concentration.  Speaking  is  far  less 
discursive  than  it  was  in  times  of  ampler  leisure  and  fewer 
subjects  of  dispute.  Facts  and  reasons  play  a  much  larger 
part  than  rhetoric  and  eloquence  in  modern  addresses,  what- 
ever the  general  purport  of  the  remarks  may  be.  So  much 
depends  upon  the  temperament  of  the  individual  speaker 
that  it  is  impossible  to  describe  the  character  of  modem  oratory 
in  a  phrase  or  a  formula.  One  may  observe,  however,  that 
the  mental  habit  of  assuming  agreement  rather  than  opposition, 
of  stimulating  friends  rather  than  answering  opponents,  has 
become  familiar  to  the  contemporary  politician. 

Types  of  speaking  have  tended  to  vary  more  and  more  with 
the  large  number  and  different  characters  of  the  men  who  adopt 
it  as  part  of  their  business  in  life.  With  this  multitude  and 
variety  there  naturally  goes  a  much  more  numerous  assem- 
blage of  styles  and  arrangements  in  rhetorical  art.  Nor  are 
they  confined  in  these  days  to  politics.  Speeches  are  frequently 
made  on  subjects  of  social  and  general  interest  which  were 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

formerly  treated  only  in  writing.  It  is  more  essentially  true 
than  before  that  the  speaker  makes  his  own  system,  bends  it 
to  his  needs,  and  adapts  it  as  it  could  not  have  been  adapted 
when  all  speeches  were  of  much  the  same  kind.  Under  these 
new  conditions  the  form  is  less  than  the  substance,  and  speeches 
are  shaped  by  the  subject,  hardly  less  than  by  the  speakers 
themselves.  There  is  now  far  less  formality  than  there  used 
to  be,  and  therefore  more  spontaneity,  more  personality,  less 
effort,  a  more  natural  note. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  argumentative  side  of  speaking 
cannot  be  neglected,  there  is  a  tendency  in  modem  oratory 
to  answer  imaginary  objections,  put  as  examples  by  the  orator 
himself,  and  thus  to  carry  on  controversy  by  means  of  artifi- 
cial debates.  The  speaker  is,  of  course,  apt  in  such  cases  to 
give  himself  the  victory.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  encour- 
aged to  study  the  whole  subject,  and  to  deal  in  earnest  with 
points  which  he  might  otherwise  be  tempted  to  omit.  This 
form  of  rhetorical  reasoning,  or  persuasive  logic,  seems  to 
carry  most  weight  with  popular  audiences  at  the  present  day. 
It  is  quite  possible  to  observe  how  the  influence  of  logical 
speaking  grows,  and  how  the  type  of  eloquence  which  contains 
a  mixture  of  logical  persuasion  becomes  more  usual  than 
simple  appeal  to  the  feelings  or  instincts  of  class  or  party, 
though,  of  course,  general  statements  about  speaking  are 
necessarily  modified  by  particulars  of  time,  place,  person  or 
circumstance. 

Lord  Morley  and  Lord  Rosebery  have  been  included  in  the 
list  of  speakers  whose  eloquence  is  illustrated  in  this  volume, 
as  they  furnish  excellent  and  appropriate  specimens  of  modem 
and  contemporary  rhetoric.  They  have  both  dealt  with 
abundance  of  topics,  and  the  choice  of  examples  was  not  easy. 
The  two  addresses  chosen  bring  out  clearly  and  conspicuously 
the  distinctive  characteristics  of  their  styles.  They  complete 
a  collection  which  might  well  have  been  extended,  but  which 
as  it  stands  comprises  a  sufficient  number  of  instances  to  be 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

fairly  representative  of  English  oratory  during  the  last  few 
decades.  It  will  be  seen  that  while  the  subject  and  scope 
of  public  speaking  have  greatly  widened,  they  have 
developed  in  a  manner  not  incompatible  with  the  precedents 
and  traditions  of  the  past. 


FAMOUS     SPEECHES 


LORD   MACAULAY 

Macaulay's  first  speech  on  Indian  affairs  was  considered  by 
some  good  judges  to  be  the  best  speech  he  ever  made.  It  is 
certainly  one  of  the  most  vivid  and  picturesque,  extremely 
characteristic  in  the  wealth  of  its  imagery,  the  force  of  its 
rhetoric,  and  the  thorough  grasp  of  a  compUcated  subject  in 
aU  its  bearings.  The  occasion  was  the  renewal  of  the  East 
India  Company's  Charter  in  1833,  when  their  monopoly  was 
extinguished,  and  they  ceased  to  trade  on  their  own  account, 
becoming  merely  administrators  under  the  control  of  the 
Crown.  Macaulay  was  then  Secretary  to  the  Board  of  Control 
in  the  Government  of  Lord  Grey.  The  Bill  in  support  of  which 
this  speech  was  made  authorised  the  admission  of  Indians  to 
office,  and  introduced  a  hmited  form  of  competition  for  the 
Civil  Service  of  India. 

The  Government  of  India 
House  of  Commons,  July  10,  1833 

Having,  while  this  bill  was  in  preparation,  enjoyed  the  fuUest 
and  kindest  confidence  of  my  right  honourable  friend  the 
President  of  the  Board  of  Control,  agreeing  with  him  com- 
pletely in  all  those  views  which  on  a  former  occasion,  he  so 
luminously  and  eloquently  developed,  having  shared  his 
anxieties,  and  feehng  that  in^some  degree  I  share  his  responsi- 
biUty,  I  am  naturally  anxious  to  obtain  the  attention  of  the 
House  while  I  attempt  to  defend  the  principles  of  the  proposed 
arrangement.  I  wish  that  I  could  promise  to  be  very  brief  ; 
but  the  subject  is  so  extensive  that  I  will  only  promise  to 
condense  what  I  have  to  say  as  much  as  I  can. 

I  rejoice,  Sir,  that  I  am  completely  dispensed,  by  the  turn 
which  our  debates  have  taken,  from  the  necessity  of  saying 
anything  in  favour  of  one  part  of  our  plan,  the  opening  of  the 

1 

I— (2l7l) 


2  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

China  trade.  No  voice,  I  believe,  has  yet  been  raised  here 
in  support  of  the  monopoly.  On  that  subject  aU  public 
men  of  all  parties  seem  to  be  agreed.  The  resolution  proposed 
by  the  Ministers  has  received  the  unanimous  assent  of  both 
Houses,  and  the  approbation  of  the  whole  kingdom.  I  will 
not,  therefore,  Sir,  detain  you  by  vindicating  what  no  gentle- 
man has  yet  ventured  to  attack,  but  will  proceed  to  call  your 
attention  to  those  effects  which  this  great  commercial  revolu- 
tion necessarily  produced  on  the  system  of  Indian  government 
and  finance. 

The  China  trade  is  to  be  opened.  Reason  requires  this. 
Public  opinion  requires  it.  The  Government  of  the  Duke  of 
WeUington  felt  the  necessity  as  strongly  as  the  Government 
of  Lord  Grey.  No  Minister,  Whig  or  Tory,  could  have  been 
found  to  propose  a  renewal  of  the  monopoly.  No  parHament, 
reformed  or  unreformed,  would  have  listened  to  such  a  proposi- 
tion. But  though  the  opening  of  the  trade  was  a  matter 
concerning  which  the  public  had  long  made  up  its  mind,  the 
political  consequences  which  must  necessarily  follow  from  the 
opening  of  the  trade  seem  to  me  to  be  even  now  little  under- 
stood. The  language  which  I  have  heard  in  almost  every 
circle  when  the  subject  was  discussed  was  this  :  "  Take  away 
the  monopoly,  and  leave  the  Government  of  India  to  the 
Company  "  ;  a  very  short  and  convenient  way  of  settling  one 
of  the  most  compHcated  questions  that  ever  a  legislature 
had  to  consider.  The  honourable  member  for  Sheffield  (Mr. 
Buckingham)  though  not  disposed  to  retain  the  Company  as 
an  organ  of  government,  has  repeatedly  used  language  which 
proves  that  he  shares  in  the  general  misconception.  The 
fact  is  that  the  abolition  of  the  monopoly  rendered  it 
absolutely  necessary  to  make  a  fundamental  change  in  the 
constitution  of  that  great  corporation. 

The  Company  had  united  in  itself  two  characters,  the 
character  of  trader  and  the  character  of  Sovereign.  Between 
the  trader  and  the  Sovereign  there  was  a  long  and  complicated 
account,  almost  every  item  of  which  furnished  matter  for 
litigation.  While  the  monopoly  continued,  indeed,  htigation 
was  averted.  The  effect  of  the  monopoly  was,  to  satisfy  the 
claims  both  of  commerce  and  of  territory,  at  the  expense  of 
a  third  party,  the  English  people  ;  to  secure  at  once  funds  for 
the  dividend  of  the  stockholder  and  funds  for  the  government 


MACAULAY  3 

of  the  Indian  Empire,  by  means  of  a  heavy  tax  on  the  tea 
consumed  in  this  country.  But,  when  the  third  party  would 
no  longer  bear  this  charge,  all  the  great  financial  questions 
which  had,  at  the  cost  of  that  third  party,  been  kept  in  abey- 
ance, were  opened  in  an  instant.  The  connection  between  the 
Company  in  its  mercantile  capacity,  and  the  same  company 
in  its  poUtical  capacity,  was  dissolved.  Even  if  the  Company 
were  permitted,  as  has  been  suggested,  to  govern  India  and  at 
the  same  time  to  trade  with  China,  no  advances  would  be  made 
from  the  profits  of  its  Chinese  trade  for  the  support  of  its 
Indian  government.  It  was  in  consideration  of  the  exclusive 
privilege  that  the  Company  had  hitherto  been  required  to  make 
those  advances  ;  it  was  by  the  exclusive  privilege  that  the 
Company  had  been  enabled  to  make  them.  When  that 
privilege  was  taken  away,  it  would  be  unreasonable  in  the 
Legislature  to  impose  such  an  obligation,  and  impossible  for 
the  Company  to  fulfil  it.  The  whole  system  of  loans  from 
commerce  to  territory,  and  repayments  from  territory  to  com- 
merce, must  cease.  Each  party  must  rest  altogether  on  its 
own  resources.  It  was  therefore  absolutely  necessary  to 
ascertain  what  resources  each  party  possessed,  to  bring  the 
long  and  intricate  account  between  them  to  a  close,  and  to 
assign  to  each  a  fair  portion  of  debts  and  liabilities.  There 
was  vast  property.  How  much  of  that  property  was  applicable 
to  purposes  of  state  ?  How  much  was  apphcable  to  a  dividend  ? 
There  were  debts  to  the  amount  of  many  millions.  Which  of 
these  were  the  debts  of  the  government  that  ruled  at  Calcutta  ? 
Which  of  the  great  mercantile  house  that  bought  tea  at 
Canton  ?  Were  the  creditors  to  look  to  the  land  revenues  of 
India  for  their  money  ?  Or  were  they  entitled  to  put 
executions  into  the  warehouses  behind  Bishopsgate  Street  ? 

There  were  two  ways  of  settling  these  questions  ;  adjudica- 
cation  and  compromise.  The  difficulties  of  adjudication 
were  great ;  I  think  insuperable.  Whatever  acuteness  and 
dihgence  could  do  has  been  done.  One  person  in  particular, 
whose  talents  and  industry  pecuharly  fitted  him  for  such 
investigations,  and  of  whom  I  can  never  think  without  regret, 
Mr.  Hyde  ViUiers,  devoted  himself  to  the  examination  with  an 
ardour  and  a  perseverance  which,  I  beheve,  shortened  a  life 
most  valuable  to  his  country  and  his  friends.  The  assistance 
of  the  most  skilful  accountants  has  been  called  in.     But  the 


4  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

difficulties  are  such  as  no  accountant,  however  skilful,  could 
possibly  remove.  The  difficulties  are  not  arithmetical,  but 
political.  They  arise  from  the  Constitution  of  the  Company, 
from  the  long  and  intimate  union  of  the  commercial  and 
imperial  charters  in  one  body.  Suppose  that  the  treasurer 
of  a  charity  were  to  mix  up  the  money  which  he  receives  on 
account  of  the  charity  with  his  own  private  rents  and  dividends, 
to  pay  the  whole  into  his  bank  to  his  own  private  account, 
to  draw  it  out  again  by  cheques  in  exactly  the  same  form 
when  he  wanted  it  for  the  purpose  of  his  public  trust.  Suppose 
that  he  were  to  continue  to  act  thus  till  he  was  himself  ignorant 
whether  he  were  in  advance  or  arrear ;  and  suppose  that 
many  years  after  his  death  a  question  were  to  arise  whether 
his  estate  were  in  debt  to  the  charity  or  the  charity  to  his 
estate.  Such  is  the  question  which  is  now  before  us,  with  this 
important  difference  ;  that  the  accounts  of  an  individual 
could  not  be  in  such  a  state  unless  he  had  been  guilty  of  fraud, 
and  that  the  accounts  of  the  Company  were  brought  into  this 
state  by  circumstances  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Company  was  a  merely 
commercial  body  tiU  the  middle  of  the  last  century.  Commerce 
was  its  chief  object ;  but  in  order  to  enable  it  to  pursue  that 
object,  it  had  been,  like  the  other  Companies  which  were  its 
rivals,  like  the  Dutch  India  Company,  like  the  French  India 
Company,  invested  from  a  very  early  period  with  political 
functions.  More  than  120  years  ago,  the  Company  was  in 
miniature  precisely  what  it  now  is.  It  was  entrusted  with  the 
very  highest  prerogatives  of  sovereignty.  It  had  its  forts, 
and  its  white  captains,  and  its  black  sepoys  ;  it  had  its  civil 
and  criminal  tribunals  ;  it  was  authorised  to  proclaim  martial 
law  ;  it  sent  ambassadors  to  the  native  governments  and 
concluded  treaties  with  them  ;  it  was  Zemindar  of  several 
districts,  and  within  those  districts,  like  other  Zemindars  of 
the  first  class,  it  exercised  the  powers  of  a  sovereign,  even  to 
the  infliction  of  capital  punishment  on  the  Hindoos  within  its 
jurisdiction.  It  is  incorrect,  therefore,  to  say,  that  the  Com- 
pany was  at  first  a  mere  trader,  and  has  since  become  a  sove- 
reign. It  was  at  first  a  great  trader  and  a  petty  prince.  The 
political  functions  at  first  attracted  Httle  notice,  because  they 
were  merely  auxiliary  to  the  commercial  functions.  By  degrees, 
however,    the   political    functions    became    more    and    more 


MACAULAY  5 

important.  The  Zemindar  became  a  great  nabob,  became 
Sovereign  of  all  India  ;  the  200  sepoys  became  200,000.  This 
change  was  gradually  wrought,  and  was  not  immediately 
comprehended.  It  was  natural  that,  while  the  political 
functions  of  the  Company  were  merely  auxiliary  to  its  com- 
merce, the  pohtical  accounts  should  have  been  mixed  up  with 
the  commercial  accounts.  It  was  equally  natural  that  this 
mode  of  keeping  accounts,  having  once  been  established, 
should  have  remained  unaltered  ;  and  the  more  so,  as  the 
change  in  the  situation  of  the  Company,  though  rapid,  was 
not  sudden.  It  is  impossible  to  name  any  one  day,  or  any  one 
year,  as  the  day  or  the  year  when  the  Company  became  a 
great  potentate.  It  has  been  the  fashion  indeed  to  fix  on 
the  year  1765,  the  year  in  which  the  Mogul  issued  a  commission 
authorising  the  Company  to  administer  the  revenues  of  Bengal, 
Behar,  and  Orissa,  as  the  precise  date  of  the  accession  of  this 
singular  body  to  Sovereignty,  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  under- 
stand why  this  epoch  should  be  selected.  Long  before  1765, 
the  Company  had  the  reahty  of  pohtical  power.  Long  before 
that  year,  they  made  a  nabob  of  Arcot ;  they  made  and 
unmade  nabobs  of  Bengal ;  they  humbled  the  Vizier  of  Oude  ; 
they  braved  the  Emperor  of  Hindustan  himself ;  more  than 
half  the  revenues  of  Bengal  were  under  one  pretence  or  another 
administered  by  them.  And  after  the  grant,  the  Company 
was  not,  in  form  and  name,  an  independent  power.  It  was 
merely  a  minister  of  the  Court  of  Delhi.  Its  coinage  bore 
the  name  of  Shah  Alum.  The  inscription  which,  down  to  the 
time  of  the  Marquis  of  Hastings,  appeared  on  the  seal  of  the 
Governor-General,  declared  that  great  functionary  to  be  the 
slave  of  the  Mogul.  Even  to  this  day  we  have  never  formally 
deposed  the  King  of  Delhi.  The  Company  contents  itself 
with  being  Mayor  of  the  Palace,  while  the  Rot  Faineant  is 
suffered  to  play  at  being  a  Sovereign.  In  fact,  it  was  con- 
sidered, both  by  Lord  Clive  and  by  Warren  Hastings,  as  a  point 
of  poHcy  to  leave  the  character  of  the  Company  thus  unde- 
fined, in  order  that  the  Enghsh  might  treat  the  princes  in 
whose  names  they  governed  as  realities  or  nonentities,  just  as 
might  be  most  convenient. 

Thus  the  transformation  of  the  Company  from  a  trading 
body,  which  possessed  some  Sovereign  prerogatives  for  the 
purpose  of  trade,  into  a  Sovereign  body,  the  trade  of  which 


6  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

was  auxiliary  to  its  Sovereignty,  was  effected  by  degrees 
and  under  disguise.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  the 
mercantile  and  political  transactions  of  this  great  corporation 
should  be  entangled  together  in  inextricable  compHcation. 
The  commercial  investments  have  been  purchased  out  of  the 
revenues  of  the  empire.  The  expenses  of  war  and  government 
have  been  defrayed  out  of  the  profits  of  the  trade.  Commerce 
and  territory  have  contributed  to  the  improvement  of  the 
same  spot  of  land,  to  the  repairs  of  the  same  building.  Securi- 
ties have  been  given  in  precisely  the  same  form,  for  money 
which  has  been  borrowed  for  purposes  of  State,  and  for  money 
which  has  been  borrowed  for  purposes  of  traffic.  It  is  easy, 
indeed, — and  this  is  a  circumstance  which  has,  I  think,  misled 
some  gentlemen, — it  is  easy  to  see  what  part  of  the  assets  of  the 
Company  appears  in  a  commercial  form,  and  what  appears 
in  a  poHtical  or  territorial  form.  But  this  is  not  the  question. 
Assets  which  are  commercial  in  form  may  be  territorial  as 
respects  the  right  of  property  ;  assets  which  are  territorial 
in  form  may  be  commercial  as  respects  the  right  of  property. 
A  chest  of  tea  is  not  necessarily  commercial  property  ;  it  may 
have  been  bought  out  of  the  territorial  revenue.  A  fort  is 
not  necessarily  territorial  property  ;  it  may  stand  on  ground 
which  the  Company  bought  a  hundred  years  ago  out  of  their 
commercial  profits.  Adjudication,  if  by  adjudication  be 
meant  decision  according  to  some  known  rule  of  law,  was  out 
of  the  question.  To  leave  matters  like  these  to  be  determined 
by  the  ordinary  maxims  of  our  civil  jurisprudence  would  have 
been  the  height  of  absurdity  and  injustice.  For  example, 
the  home  bond  debt  of  the  Company,  it  is  believed,  was  in- 
curred partly  for  pohtical  and  partly  for  commercial  purposes. 
But  there  is  no  evidence  which  would  enable  us  to  assign 
to  each  branch  its  proper  share.  The  bonds  all  run  in  the 
same  form  ;  and  a  court  of  justice  would,  therefore,  of  course, 
either  lay  the  whole  burthen  on  the  proprietors,  or  lay  the 
whole  on  the  territory.  We  have  legal  opinions,  very  respect- 
able legal  opinions,  to  the  effect,  that  in  strictness  of  law  the 
territory  is  not  responsible,  and  that  the  commercial  assets 
are  responsible  for  every  farthing  of  the  debts  which  were 
incurred  for  the  government  and  the  defence  of  India.  But 
though  this  may  be,  and  I  beheve  is,  law,  it  is,  I  am  sure, 
neither  reason  nor  justice.     On  the  other  hand,  it  is  urged 


MACAULAY  7 

by  the  advocates  of  the  Company,  that  some  valuable  portions 
of  the  territory  are  the  property  of  that  body  in  its  commercial 
capacity  ;  that  Calcutta,  for  example,  is  the  private  estate  of 
the  Company  ;  that  the  Company  holds  the  island  of  Bombay, 
in  free  and  common  socage,  as  of  the  Manor  of  East  Greenwich. 
I  will  not  pronounce  any  opinion  on  these  points.  I  have 
considered  them  enough  to  see  that  there  is  quite  difficulty 
enough  in  them  to  exercise  all  the  ingenuity  of  all  the  lawyers 
in  the  kingdom  for  twenty  years.  But  the  fact  is,  Sir,  that  the 
municipal  law  was  not  made  for  controversies  of  this  description. 
The  existence  of  such  a  body  as  this  gigantic  corporation,  this 
poUtical  monster  of  two  natures,  subject  in  one  hemisphere, 
Sovereign  in  another,  had  never  been  contemplated  by  the 
legislators  or  judges  of  former  ages.  Nothing  but  grotesque 
absurdity  and  atrocious  injustice  could  have  been  the  effect, 
if  the  claims  and  habihties  of  such  a  body  had  been  settled 
according  to  the  rules  of  Westminster  HaU,  if  the  maxims  of 
conveyancers  had  been  appHed  to  the  titles  by  which  flourishing 
cities  and  provinces  are  held,  or  the  maxims  of  the  law  mer- 
chant to  those  promissory  notes  which  are  the  securities  for  a 
great  National  Debt,  raised  for  the  purpose  of  exterminating 
the  Pindarrees  and  humbling  the  Burmese. 

It  was,  as  I  have  said,  absolutely  impossible  to  bring  the 
question  between  commerce  and  territory  to  a  satisfactory 
adjudication  ;  and  I  must  add  that,  even  if  the  difficulties 
which  I  have  mentioned  could  have  been  surmounted,  even 
if  there  had  been  reason  to  hope  that  a  satisfactory  adjudication 
could  have  been  obtained,  I  should  stiU  have  wished  to  avoid 
that  course.  I  think  it  desirable  that  the  Company  should 
continue  to  have  a  share  in  the  government  of  India  ;  and  it 
would  evidently  have  been  impossible,  pending  a  Utigation 
between  commerce  and  territory,  to  leave  any  pohtical  power 
to  the  Company.  It  would  clearly  have  been  the  duty  of  those 
who  were  charged  with  the  superintendence  of  India  to  be  the 
patrons  of  India  throughout  that  momentous  htigation,  to 
scrutinise  with  the  utmost  severity  every  claim  which  might 
be  made  on  the  Indian  revenues,  and  to  oppose,  with  energy 
and  perseverance,  every  such  claim,  unless  its  justice  were 
manifest.  If  the  Company  was  to  be  engaged  in  a  suit  for  many 
millions,  in  a  suit  which  might  last  for  many  years,  against  the 
Indian   territory,   could  we  entrust   the  Company  with   the 


8  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

government  of  that  territory  ?  Could  we  put  the  plaintiff 
in  the  situation  of  the  prochain  ami  of  the  defendant  ?  Could 
we  appoint  governors  who  would  have  had  an  interest  opposed 
in  the  most  direct  manner  to  the  interest  of  the  governed, 
whose  stock  would  have  been  raised  in  value  by  every  decision 
which  added  to  the  burthens  of  their  subjects,  and  depressed 
by  every  decision  which  diminished  those  burthens  ?  It 
would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  they  would  efficiently  defend 
our  Indian  Empire  against  the  claims  which  they  themselves 
were  bringing  against  it ;  and  it  would  be  equally  absurd 
to  give  the  government  of  the  Indian  Empire  to  those  who 
could  not  be  trusted  to  defend  its  interests. 

Seeing,  then,  that  it  was  most  difficult,  if  not  wholly  impos- 
sible, to  resort  to  adjudication  between  commerce  and  territory, 
seeing  that,  if  recourse  were  had  to  adjudication,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  make  a  complete  revolution  in  the  whole  constitu- 
tion of  India,  the  Government  has  proposed  a  compromise. 
That  compromise,  with  some  modifications  which  did  not 
in  the  least  degree  affect  its  principle,  and  which,  while  they 
gave  satisfaction  to  the  Company,  will  eventually  lay  no 
additional  burthen  on  the  territory,  has  been  accepted.  It 
has,  Uke  all  other  compromises,  been  loudly  censured  by  violent 
partisans  on  both  sides.  It  has  been  represented  by  some 
as  far  too  favourable  to  the  Company,  and  by  others  as  most 
unjust  to  the  Company.  Sir,  I  own  that  we  cannot  prove 
that  either  of  these  accusations  is  unfounded.  It  is  of  the  very 
essence  of  our  case  that  we  should  not  be  able  to  show  that  we 
have  assigned,  either  to  commerce  or  to  territory,  its  precise 
due.  For  our  principal  reason  for  recommending  a  compromise 
was  a  full  conviction  that  it  was  absolutely  impossible  to 
ascertain  with  precision  what  was  due  to  commerce  and  what 
was  due  to  territory.  It  is  not  strange  that  some  people 
should  accuse  us  of  robbing  the  Company,  and  others  of 
conferring  a  vast  boon  on  the  Company  at  the  expense  of 
India  :  for  we  have  proposed  a  middle  course,  on  the  very 
ground  that  there  was  a  chance  of  a  result  much  more  favour- 
able to  the  Company  than  our  arrangement,  and  a  chance 
also  of  a  result  much  less  favourable.  If  the  questions  pending 
between  the  Company  and  India  had  been  decided  as  the 
ardent  supporters  of  the  Company  predicted,  India  would, 
if  I  calculate  rightly,  have  paid  £11,000,000  more  than  she  will 


MACAULAY  9 

now  have  to  pay.  If  those  questions  had  been  decided  as 
some  violent  enemies  of  the  Company  predicted,  that  great 
body  would  have  been  utterly  ruined.  The  very  meaning  of 
compromise  is  that  each  party  gives  up  his  chance  of  complete 
success,  in  order  to  be  secured  against  the  chance  of  utter  failure. 
And,  as  men  of  sanguine  mind  always  overrate  the  chances 
in  their  own  favour,  every  fair  compromise  is  sure  to  be 
severely  censured  on  both  sides.  I  conceive  that,  in  a  case 
so  dark  and  comphcated  as  this,  the  compromise  which  we 
recommend  is  sufficiently  vindicated,  if  it  cannot  be  proved 
to  be  imfair.  We  are  not  bound  to  prove  it  to  be  fair.  For  it 
would  have  been  unnecessary  for  us  to  resort  to  compromise 
at  all,  if  we  had  been  in  possession  of  evidence  which  would 
have  enabled  us  to  pronounce,  with  certainty,  what  claims 
were  fair  and  what  were  unfair.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  have 
acted  with  due  consideration  for  every  party.  The  dividend 
which  we  give  to  the  proprietors  is  precisely  the  same  dividend 
which  they  have  been  receiving  during  forty  years,  and  which 
they  have  expected  to  receive  permanently.  The  price  of 
their  stock  bears  at  present  the  same  proportion  to  the  price 
of  other  stock  which  it  bore  four  or  five  years  ago,  before  the 
anxiety  and  excitement  which  late  negotiations  naturally 
produced  had  begun  to  operate.  As  to  the  territory  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  true  that,  if  the  assets  which  are  now  in  a 
commercial  form  should  not  produce  a  fund  sufficient  to  pay 
the  debts  and  dividend  of  the  Company,  the  territory  must 
stand  to  the  loss  and  pay  the  difference.  But  in  return  for 
taking  this  risk,  the  territory  obtains  an  immediate  release 
from  claims  to  the  amount  of  many  miUions.  I  certainly 
do  not  believe  that  all  those  claims  could  have  been  sub- 
stantiated ;  but  I  know  that  very  able  men  think  differently. 
And,  if  only  one-fourth  of  the  sum  demanded  had  been  awarded 
to  the  Company,  India  would  have  lost  more  than  the  largest 
sum  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  she  can  possibly  lose  under  the 
proposed  arrangement. 

In  a  pecuniary  point  of  view,  therefore,  I  conceive  that 
we  can  defend  the  measure  as  it  affects  the  territory.  But 
to  the  territory  the  pecuniary  question  is  of  secondary  import- 
ance. If  we  have  made  a  good  pecuniary  bargain  for  India, 
but  a  bad  political  bargain,  if  we  have  saved  three  or  four 
millions  to  the  finances  of  that  country,  and  given  it,  at  the 


10  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

same  time,  pernicious  institutions,  we  shall  indeed  have  been 
practising  a  most  ruinous  parsimony.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  shall  be  found  that  we  have  added  fifty  or  a  hundred 
thousand  pounds  a  year  to  the  expenditure  of  an  empire  which 
yields  a  revenue  of  twenty  millions,  but  that  we  have  at  the 
same  time  secured  to  that  empire,  as  far  as  in  us  lies,  the 
blessings  of  good  government,  we  shall  have  no  reason  to  be 
ashamed  of  our  profusion.  I  hope  and  beUeve  that  India 
will  have  to  pay  nothing.  But,  on  the  most  unfavourable 
supposition  that  can  be  made,  she  will  not  have  to  pay  so 
much  to  the  Company  as  she  now  pays  annually  to  a  single 
state  pageant,  to  the  titular  Nabob  of  Bengal,  for  example, 
or  the  titular  King  of  Delhi.  What  she  pays  to  these  nominal 
princes,  who,  while  they  did  anything,  did  mischief,  who  now 
do  nothing,  she  may  well  consent  to  pay  to  her  real  rulers,  if 
she  receives  from  them,  in  return,  efficient  protection  and  good 
legislation. 

We  come  then  to  the  great  question.  Is  it  desirable  to  retain 
the  Company  as  an  organ  of  government  for  India  ?  I  think 
that  it  is  desirable.  The  question  is,  I  acknowledge,  beset  with 
difficulties.  We  have  to  solve  one  of  the  hardest  problems 
in  politics.  We  are  trying  to  make  bricks  without  straw, 
to  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean,  to  give  a  good  govern- 
ment to  people  to  whom  we  cannot  give  a  free  government.  In 
this  country,  in  any  neighbouring  country,  it  is  easy  to  frame 
securities  against  oppression.  In  Europe,  you  have  the 
materials  of  good  government  everywhere  ready  to  your 
hands.  The  people  are  everywhere  perfectly  competent 
to  hold  some  share,  not  in  every  country  an  equal  share,  but 
some  share,  of  political  power.  If  the  question  were,  What 
is  the  best  mode  of  securing  good  government  in  Europe  ?  the 
merest  smatterer  in  politics  would  answer,  representative 
institutions.  In  India  you  cannot  have  representative 
institutions.  Of  all  the  innumerable  speculators  who  have 
offered  their  suggestions  on  Indian  politics,  not  a  single  one, 
as  far  as  I  know,  however  democratical  his  opinions  may  be, 
has  ever  maintained  the  possibiUty  of  giving  at  the  present 
time  such  institutions  to  India.  One  gentleman,  extremely 
well  acquainted  with  the  affairs  of  our  Eastern  Empire,  a  most 
valuable  servant  of  the  Company,  and  the  author  of  a  History 
of  India,  which,  though  certainly  not  free  from  faults,  is,  I 


MACAULAY  11 

think,  on  the  whole,  the  greatest  historical  work  that  has 
appeared  in  our  language  since  Gibbon,  I  mean  Mr.  Mill,  was 
examined  on  this  point.  That  gentleman  is  well  known  to  be 
a  very  bold  and  uncompromising  pohtician.  He  has  written, 
strongly,  far  too  strongly  I  think,  in  favour  of  pure  democracy. 
He  has  gone  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  no  nation  which  has  not 
a  representative  legislature,  chosen  by  universal  suffrage, 
enjoys  security  against  oppression.  But  when  he  was  asked, 
before  the  Committee  of  last  year,  whether  he  thought  repre- 
sentative government  practicable  in  India,  his  answer  was, 
"  Utterly  out  of  the  question."  This,  then,  is  the  state  in 
which  we  are.  We  have  to  frame  a  good  government  for  a 
country  into  which,  by  universal  acknowledgment,  we  cannot 
introduce  those  institutions  which  all  our  habits,  which  all 
the  reasonings  of  European  philosophers,  which  all  the  history 
of  our  own  part  of  the  world,  would  lead  us  to  consider  as  the 
one  great  security  for  good  government.  We  have  to  engraft 
on  despotism  those  blessings  which  are  the  natural  fruits  of 
liberty.  In  these  circumstances,  Sir,  it  behoves  us  to  be 
cautious,  even  to  the  verge  of  timidity.  The  Ughts  of  poUtical 
science  and  of  history  are  withdrawn  :  we  are  walking  in 
darkness  :  we  do  not  distinctly  see  whither  we  are  going.  It 
is  the  wisdom  of  a  man  so  situated  to  feel  his  way,  and  not  to 
plant  his  foot  till  he  is  well  assured  that  the  ground  before  him 
is  firm. 

Some  things,  however,  in  the  midst  of  this  obscurity,  I  can 
see  with  clearness.  I  can  see,  for  example,  that  it  is  desirable 
that  the  authority  exercised  in  this  country  over  the  Indian 
Government  should  be  divided  between  two  bodies,  between 
a  minister  or  a  board  appointed  by  the  Crown,  and  some  other 
body  independent  of  the  Crown.  If  India  is  to  be  a  dependency 
of  England,  to  be  at  war  with  our  enemies,  to  be  at  peace 
with  our  allies,  to  be  protected  by  the  Enghsh  navy  from 
maritime  aggression,  to  have  a  portion  of  the  Enghsh  army 
mixed  with  its  sepoys,  it  plainly  follows  that  the  King,  to  whom 
the  Constitution  gives  the  direction  of  foreign  affairs,  and  the 
command  of  the  miUtary  and  naval  forces,  ought  to  have  a 
share  in  the  direction  of  the  Indian  Government.  Yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  a  revenue  of  £20,000,000  a  year,  an  army  of 
200,000  men,  a  civil  service  abounding  with  lucrative  situations, 
should  be  left  to  the  disposal  of  the  Crown  without  any  check 


12  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

whatever,  is  what  no  Minister,  I  conceive,  would  venture  to 
propose.  This  House  is,  indeed,  the  check  provided  by  the 
Constitution  on  the  abuse  of  the  royal  prerogative.  But  that 
this  House  is,  or  is  ever  likely  to  be,  an  efficient  check  on  abuses 
practised  in  India,  I  altogether  deny.  We  have,  as  I  beUeve 
we  all  feel,  quite  business  enough.  If  we  were  to  undertake 
the  task  of  looking  into  Indian  affairs  as  we  look  into  British 
affairs,  if  we  were  to  have  Indian  budgets  and  Indian  estimates, 
if  we  were  to  go  into  the  Indian  currency  question  and  the 
Indian  Bank  Charter,  if  to  our  disputes  about  Belgium  and 
Holland,  Don  Pedro  and  Don  Miguel,  were  to  be  added  disputes 
about  the  debts  of  the  Guicowar,  and  the  disorders  of  Mysore, 
the  ex-king  of  the  Afghans  and  the  Maharajah  Runjeet  Singh  ; 
if  we  were  to  have  one  night  occupied  by  the  embezzlements  of 
the  Benares  Mint,  and  another  by  the  panic  in  the  Calcutta 
money  market;  if  the  questions  of  Suttee  or  no  Suttee, 
Pilgrim  tax  or  no  Pilgrim  tax,  Ryotwary  or  Zemindary, 
half  Batta  or  whole  Batta,  were  to  be  debated  at  the 
same  length  at  which  we  have  debated  Church  reform 
and  the  assessed  taxes,  twenty-four  hours  a  day  and 
three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days  a  year  would  be  too 
short  a  time  for  the  discharge  of  our  duties.  The  House, 
it  is  plain,  has  not  the  necessary  time  to  settle  these  matters  ; 
nor  has  it  the  necessary  knowledge  ;  nor  has  it  the  motives  to 
acquire  that  knowledge.  The  late  change  in  its  constitution 
has  made  it,  I  believe,  a  much  more  faithful  representative 
of  the  English  people.  But  it  is  as  far  as  ever  from  being  a 
representative  of  the  Indian  people.  A  broken  head  in  Cold 
Bath  Fields  produces  a  greater  sensation  among  us  than  three 
pitched  battles  in  India.  A  few  weeks  ago  we  had  to  decide 
on  a  claim  brought  by  an  individual  against  the  revenues  of 
India.  If  it  had  been  an  EngUsh  question,  the  walls  would 
scarcely  have  held  the  members  who  would  have  flocked  to 
the  division.  It  was  an  Indian  question  ;  and  we  could 
scarcely,  by  dint  of  supplication,  make  a  House.  Even  when 
my  right  honourable  friend  the  President  of  the  Board  of 
Control  gave  his  able  and  interesting  explanation  of  the  plan 
which  he  intended  to  propose  for  the  government  of  100,000,000 
of  human  beings,  the  attendance  was  not  so  large  as  I  have 
often  seen  it  on  a  turnpike  bill  or  a  railroad  bill. 

I  then  take  these  things  as  proved,  that  the  Crown  must 


MACAULAY  13 

have  a  certain  authority  over  India,  that  there  must  be  an 
efficient  check  on  the  authority  of  the  Crown,  and  that  the 
House  of  Commons  cannot  be  that  efficient  check.  We  must 
then  find  some  other  body  to  perform  that  important  office. 
We  have  such  a  body,  the  Company.     Shall  we  discard  it  ? 

It  is  true  that  the  power  of  the  Company  is  an  anomaly  in 
pontics.  It  is  strange,  very  strange,  that  a  joint-stock  society 
of  traders,  a  society  the  shares  of  which  are  daily  passed 
from  hand  to  hand,  a  society  the  component  parts  of  which 
are  perpetually  changing,  a  society,  which,  judging  a  priori 
from  its  constitution,  we  should  have  said  was  as  little  fitted 
for  imperial  functions  as  the  Merchant  Taylors'  Company  or 
the  New  River  Company,  should  be  intrusted  with  the  Sove- 
reignty of  a  larger  population,  the  disposal  of  a  larger  clear 
revenue,  the  command  of  a  larger  army,  than  are  under  the 
direct  management  of  the  Executive  Government  of  the  United 
Kingdom.  But  what  constitution  can  we  give  to  our  Indian 
Empire  which  shall  not  be  strange,  which  shall  not  be  anoma- 
lous ?  That  Empire  is  itself  the  strangest  of  all  poHtical 
anomalies.  That  a  handful  of  adventurers  from  an  island  in 
the  Atlantic  should  have  subjugated  a  vast  country  divided 
from  the  place  of  their  birth  by  half  the  globe  ;  a  country  which, 
at  no  very  distant  period,  was  merely  the  subject  of  fable 
to  the  nations  of  Europe ;  a  country  never  before  violated 
by  the  most  renowned  of  Western  Conquerors ;  a  country 
which  Trajan  never  entered  ;  a  country  lying  beyond  the  point 
where  the  phalanx  of  Alexander  refused  to  proceed  ;  that  we 
should  govern  a  territory  10,000  miles  from  us,  a  territory 
larger  and  more  populous  than  France,  Spain,  Italy,  and 
Germany  put  together,  a  territory  the  present  clear  revenue 
of  which  exceeds  the  present  clear  revenue  of  any  State  in  the 
world,  France  excepted ;  a  territory,  inhabited  by  men 
differing  from  us  in  race,  colour,  language,  manners,  morals, 
rehgion  ;  these  are  prodigies  to  which  the  world  has  seen 
nothing  similar.  Reason  is  confounded.  We  interrogate 
the  past  in  vain.  General  rules  are  useless  where  the  whole 
is  one  vast  exception.  The  Company  is  an  anomaly  ;  but  it 
is  part  of  a  system  where  everything  is  anomaly.  It  is  the 
strangest  of  all  governments ;  but  it  is  designed  for  the 
strangest  of  all  Empires. 

If  we  discard  the  Company,  we  must  find  a  substitute  : 


14  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

and,  take  what  substitute  we  may,  we  shall  find  ourselves 
unable  to  give  any  reason  for  believing  that  the  body  which 
we  have  put  in  the  room  of  the  Company  is  likely  to  acquit 
itself  of  its  duties  better  than  the  Company.  Commissioners 
appointed  by  the  King  during  pleasure  would  be  no  check 
on  the  Crown  ;  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  King  or  by 
Parliament  for  Hfe  would  always  be  appointed  by  the  political 
party  which  might  be  uppermost,  and  if  a  change  of  adminis- 
tration took  place,  would  harass  the  new  Government  with  the 
most  vexatious  opposition.  The  plan  suggested  by  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  the  member  for  Montgomeryshire  (Mr. 
Charles  Wynne) ,  is  I  think,  the  very  worst  that  I  ever  heard.  He 
would  have  directors  nominated  every  four  years  by  the  Crown. 
Is  it  not  plain  that  these  Directors  would  always  be  appointed 
from  among  the  supporters  of  the  Ministry  for  the  time  being  ; 
that  their  situations  would  depend  on  the  permanence  of  that 
Ministry,  and,  in  case  of  a  change,  for  the  purpose  of  molesting 
those  who  might  succeed  to  power  ;  that  they  would  be 
subservient  while  their  friends  were  in,  and  factious  when  their 
friends  were  out  ?  How  would  Lord  Grey's  Ministry  have  been 
situated  if  the  whole  body  of  Directors  had  been  nominated 
by  the  Duke  of  WeUington  in  1830  ?  I  mean  no  imputation 
on  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  If  the  present  Ministers  had  to 
nominate  Directors  for  four  years,  they  would,  I  have  no  doubt, 
nominate  men  who  would  give  no  small  trouble  to  the  Duke 
of  Wellington  if  he  were  to  return  to  office.  What  we  want 
is  a  body  independent  of  the  Government,  and  no  more  than 
independent,  not  a  tool  of  the  Treasury,  not  a  tool  of  the 
Opposition.  No  new  plan  which  I  have  heard  proposed  would 
give  us  such  a  body.  The  Company,  strange  as  its  constitution 
may  be,  is  such  a  body.  It  is,  as  a  corporation,  neither  Whig 
nor  Tory,  neither  high-church  nor  low-church.  It  cannot  be 
charged  with  having  been  for  or  against  the  Catholic  Bill, 
for  or  against  the  Reform  Bill.  It  has  constantly  acted  with  a 
view,  not  to  Enghsh  pohtics,  but  to  Indian  poUtics.  We 
have  seen  the  country  convulsed  by  faction.  We  have  seen 
Ministers  driven  from  office  by  this  House,  Parhament  dissolved 
in  anger,  general  elections  of  unprecedented  turbulence,  debates 
of  unprecedented  interest.  We  have  seen  the  two  branches 
of  the  Legislature  placed  in  direct  opposition  to  each  other. 
We  have  seen  the  advisers  of  the  Crown  dismissed  one  day, 


MACAULAY  15 

and  brought  back  the  next  day  on  the  shoulders  of  the  people. 
And  amidst  all  these  agitating  events  the  Company  has  pre- 
served strict  and  unsuspected  neutrahty.  This  is,  I  think, 
an  inestimable  advantage  ;  and  it  is  an  advantage  which  we 
must  altogether  forego,  if  we  consent  to  adopt  any  of  the 
schemes  which  I  have  heard  proposed  on  the  other  side  of  the 
House. 

We  must  judge  of  the  Indian  Government,  as  of  all  other 
governments,  by  its  practical  effects.  According  to  the 
honourable  member  for  Sheffield,  India  is  ill-governed  ;  and 
the  whole  fault  is  with  the  Company.  Innumerable  accusations, 
great  and  smaU,  are  brought  by  him  against  the  Directors. 
They  are  fond  of  war  ;  they  are  fond  of  dominion  ;  the  taxation 
is  burdensome  ;  the  laws  are  undigested  ;  the  roads  are 
rough  ;  the  post  goes  on  foot ;  and  for  everything  the  Company 
is  answerable.  From  the  dethronement  of  the  Mogul  princes 
to  the  mishaps  of  Sir  Charles  Metcalfe's  courier,  every  disaster 
that  has  taken  place  in  the  East  during  sixty  years  is  laid 
to  the  charge  of  this  Corporation.  And  the  inference  is,  that 
all  the  power  which  they  possess  ought  to  be  taken  out  of  their 
hands,  and  transferred  at  once  to  the  Crown. 

Now,  Sir,  it  seems  to  me  that  for  all  the  evil,  which  the 
honourable  gentleman  has  so  pathetically  recounted,  the 
Ministers  of  the  Crown  are  as  much  to  blame  as  the  Company  ; 
nay,  much  more  so  ;  for  the  Board  of  Control  could,  without 
the  consent  of  the  Directors,  have  redressed  those  evils  ;  and 
the  Directors  most  certainly  could  not  have  redressed  them 
without  the  consent  of  the  Board  of  Control.  Take  the  case  of 
that  frightful  grievance  which  seems  to  have  made  the  deepest 
impression  on  the  mind  of  the  honourable  gentleman,  the 
slowness  of  the  mail.  Why,  Sir,  if  my  right  honourable 
friend  the  President  of  our  Board  thought  fit,  he  might 
direct  me  to  write  to  the  Court  and  require  them  to  frame 
a  despatch  on  that  subject.  If  the  Court  disobeyed,  he  might 
himself  frame  a  despatch  ordering  Lord  WiUiam  Bentinck  to 
put  the  dawks  all  over  Bengal  on  horseback.  If  the  Court 
refused  to  send  out  this  despatch,  the  Board  could  apply  to  the 
King's  Bench  for  a  Mandamus.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Directors  wished  to  accelerate  the  journeys  of  the  mail,  and 
the  Board  were  adverse  to  the  project,  the  Directors  could 
do  nothing  at  all.     For  all  measures  of  internal  poHcy  the 


16  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

servants  of  the  King  are  at  least  as  deeply  responsible  as  the 
Company.  For  aU  measures  of  foreign  policy,  the  servants 
of  the  King,  and  they  alone,  are  responsible.  I  was  surprised 
to  hear  the  honourable  gentleman  accuse  the  Directors  of 
insatiable  ambition  and  rapacity,  when  he  must  know  that  no 
act  of  aggression  on  any  native  state  can  be  committed  by  the 
Company  without  the  sanction  of  the  Board,  and  that,  in  fact, 
the  Board  has  repeatedly  approved  of  warlike  measures,  which 
were  strenuously  opposed  by  the  Company.  He  must  know, 
in  particular,  that,  during  the  energetic  and  splendid  adminis- 
tration of  the  Marquess  Wellesley,  the  Company  was  aU  for 
peace,  and  the  Board  aU  for  conquest.  If  a  Une  of  conduct 
which  the  honourable  gentleman  thinks  unjustifiable  has  been 
followed  by  the  Ministers  of  the  Crown  in  spite  of  the  remon- 
strance of  the  Directors,  this  is  surely  a  strange  resison  for 
turning  off  the  Directors,  and  giving  the  whole  power 
unchecked  to  the  Crown. 

The  honourable  member  teUs  us  that  India,  under  the  present 
system,  is  not  so  rich  and  flourishing  as  she  was  two  hundred 
years  ago.  Really,  Sir,  I  doubt  whether  we  are  in  possession  of 
sufficient  data  to  enable  us  to  form  a  judgment  on  that  point. 
But  the  matter  is  of  httle  importance.  We  ought  to  compare 
India  under  our  government,  not  with  India  under  Akbar 
and  his  immediate  successors,  but  with  India  as  we  found  it. 
The  calamities  through  which  that  country  passed  during  the 
interval  between  the  f aU  of  the  Mogul  power  and  the  estabhsh- 
ment  of  the  Enghsh  supremacy  were  sufficient  to  throw  the 
people  back  whole  centuries.  It  would  surely  be  unjust  to 
say,  that  Alfred  was  a  bad  king  because  Britain,  under  his 
government,  was  not  so  rich  or  so  civilised  as  in  the  time  of 
the  Romans. 

In  what  state,  then,  did  we  find  India  ?  And  what  have 
we  made  India  ?  We  found  society  throughout  that  vast 
country  in  a  state  to  which  history  scarcely  furnishes  a  parallel. 
The  nearest  parallel  would,  perhaps,  be  the  state  of  Europe 
during  the  fifth  century.  The  Mogul  empire  in  the  time  of 
the  successors  of  Aurungzebe,  hke  the  Roman  empire  in  the 
time  of  the  successors  of  Theodosius,  was  sinking  under  the 
vices  of  a  bad  internal  administration,  and  under  the  assaults 
of  barbarous  invaders.  At  Delhi,  as  at  Ravenna,  there  was 
a  mock  Sovereign  immured  in  a  gorgeous  state  prison.     He 


MACAULAY  17 

was  suffered  to  indulge  in  every  sensual  pleasure.  He  was 
adored  with  servile  prostrations.  He  assumed  and  bestowed 
the  most  magnificent  titles.  But,  in  fact,  he  was  a  mere 
puppet  in  the  hands  of  some  ambitious  subject.  While  the 
Honorii  and  AugustuU  of  the  East,  surrounded  by  their  fawning 
eunuchs,  revelled  and  dozed  without  knowing  or  caring  what 
might  pass  beyond  the  walls  of  their  palace  gardens,  the 
provinces  had  ceased  to  respect  a  government  which  could 
neither  punish  nor  protect  them.  Society  was  a  chaos.  Its 
restless  and  shifting  elements  formed  themselves  every  moment 
into  some  new  combination  which  the  next  moment  dissolved. 
In  the  course  of  a  single  generation  a  hundred  dynasties  grew 
up,  flourished,  decayed,  were  extinguished,  were  forgotten. 
Every  adventurer  who  could  muster  a  troop  of  horse  might 
aspire  to  a  throne.  Every  palace  was  every  year  the  scene  of 
conspiracies,  treasons,  resolutions,  parricides.  Meanwhile  a 
rapid  succession  of  Alarics  and  Attilas  passed  over  the  defence- 
less empire.  A  Persian  invader  penetrated  to  Delhi,  and  carried 
back  in  triumph  the  most  precious  treasures  of  the  House  of 
Tamerlane.  The  Afghan  soon  followed,  by  the  same  track, 
to  glean  whatever  the  Persian  had  spared.  The  Yauts  estab- 
lished themselves  on  the  Jumna.  The  Sikhs  devastated 
Lahore.  Every  part  of  India,  from  Tanjore  to  the  Himalayas, 
was  laid  under  contribution  by  the  Mahrattas.  The  people 
were  ground  down  to  the  dust  by  the  oppressor  without 
and  the  oppressor  within,  by  the  robber  from  whom  the  Nabob 
was  unable  to  protect  them,  by  the  Nabob  who  took  whatever 
the  robber  had  left  to  them.  All  the  evils  of  despotism, 
and  all  the  evils  of  anarchy,  pressed  at  once  on  that  miserable 
race.  They  knew  nothing  of  government  but  its  exactions. 
Desolation  was  in  their  imperial  cities,  and  famine  all  along 
the  banks  of  their  broad  and  redundant  rivers.  It  seemed  that 
a  few  more  years  would  suffice  to  efface  aU  traces  of  the  opulence 
and  civilisation  of  an  earlier  age. 

Such  was  the  state  of  India  when  the  Company  began  to 
take  part  in  the  disputes  of  its  ephemeral  Sovereigns.  About 
eighty  years  have  elapsed  since  we  appeared  as  auxiliaries  in  a 
contest  between  two  rival  families  for  the  Sovereignty  of  a 
small  comer  of  the  Peninsula.  From  that  moment  commenced 
a  great,  a  stupendous  process,  the  reconstruction  of  a  decom- 
posed society.     Two  generations  have  passed  away  ;   and  the 

2  — (2171) 


18  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

process  is  complete.  The  scattered  fragments  of  the  empire  of 
Auningzebe  have  been  united  in  an  empire  stronger  and  more 
closely  knit  than  that  which  Aurungzebe  ruled.  The  power 
of  the  new  Sovereigns  penetrates  their  dominions  more  com- 
pletely, and  is  far  more  impUcitly  obeyed,  than  was  that  of  the 
proudest  princes  of  the  Mogul  dynasty. 

It  is  true  that  the  early  history  of  this  great  revolution  is 
chequered  with  guilt  and  shame.  It  is  true  that  the  founders 
of  our  Indian  empire  too  often  abused  the  strength  which 
they  derived  from  superior  energy  and  superior  knowledge. 
It  is  true  that,  with  some  of  the  highest  qualities  of  the  race 
from  which  they  sprang,  they  combined  some  of  the  worst 
defects  of  the  race  over  which  they  ruled.  How  should  it 
have  been  otherwise  ?  Bom  in  humble  stations,  accustomed 
to  earn  a  slender  maintenance  by  obscure  industry,  they 
found  themselves  transformed  in  a  few  months  from  clerks 
drudging  over  desks,  or  captains  in  marching  regiments, 
into  statesmen  and  generals,  with  armies  at  their  command, 
with  the  revenues  of  kingdoms  at  their  disposal,  with  power 
to  make  and  depose  sovereigns  at  their  pleasure.  They  were 
what  it  was  natural  that  men  should  be  who  had  been  raised 
by  so  rapid  an  ascent  to  so  dizzy  an  eminence,  profuse  and 
rapacious,  imperious  and  corrupt. 

It  is  true,  then,  that  there  was  too  much  foundation  for  the 
representations  of  those  satirists  and  dramatists  who  held  up 
the  character  of  the  Enghsh  Nabob  to  the  derision  and  hatred 
of  a  former  generation.  It  is  true  that  some  disgraceful 
intrigues,  some  unjust  and  cruel  wars,  some  instances  of 
odious  perfidy  and  avarice  stain  the  annals  of  our  Eastern 
empire.  It  is  true  that  the  duties  of  government  and  legislation 
were  long  wholly  neglected  or  carelessly  performed.  It  is  true 
that  when  the  conquerors  at  length  began  to  apply  themselves 
in  earnest  to  the  discharge  of  their  high  functions  they  com- 
mitted the  errors  natural  to  rulers  who  were  but  imperfectly 
acquainted  with  the  language  and  manners  of  their  subjects. 
It  is  true  that  some  plans,  which  were  dictated  by  the  purest 
and  most  benevolent  feehngs,  have  not  been  attended  by  the 
desired  success.  It  is  true  that  India  suffers  to  this  day  from 
a  heavy  burden  of  taxation  and  from  a  defective  system  of 
law.  It  is  true,  I  fear,  that  in  those  states  which  are  connected 
with  us  by  subsidiary  alliance,  all  the  evils  of  oriental  despotism 


MACAULAY  19 

have  too  frequently  shown  themselves  in  their  most  loathsome 
and  destructive  form. 

All  this  is  true.  Yet  in  the  history  and  in  the  present  state 
of  our  Indian  empire  I  see  ample  reason  for  exultation  and  for 
a  good  hope. 

I  see  that  we  have  estabUshed  order  where  we  found  confusion. 
I  see  that  the  petty  dynasties  which  were  generated  by  the 
corruption  of  the  great  Mahometan  empire,  and  which,  a 
century  ago,  kept  all  India  in  constant  agitation,  have  been 
quelled  by  one  overwhelming  power.  I  see  that  the  predatory 
tribes  which,  in  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  passed  annually 
over  the  harvests  of  India  with  the  destructive  rapidity  of  a 
hurricane,  have  quailed  before  the  valour  of  a  braver  and 
sterner  race,  have  been  vanquished,  scattered,  hunted  to  their 
strongholds,  and  either  extirpated  by  the  EngHsh  sword,  or 
compelled  to  exchange  the  pursuits  of  rapine  for  those  of 
industry. 

I  look  back  for  many  years,  and  I  see  scarcely  a  trace  of 
the  vices  which  blemished  the  splendid  fame  of  the  first  con- 
querors of  Bengal.  I  see  peace  studiously  preserved.  I 
see  faith  inviolably  maintained  towards  feeble  and  dependent 
states.  I  see  confidence  gradually  infused  into  the  minds  of 
suspicious  neighbours.  I  see  the  horrors  of  war  mitigated 
by  the  chivalrous  and  Christian  [spirit  of  Europe.  I  see 
examples  of  moderation  and  clemency,  such  as  I  should  seek  in 
vain  in  the  annals  of  any  other  victorious  and  dominant 
nation.  I  see  captive  t5n:ants,  whose  treachery  and  cruelty 
might  have  excused  a  severe  retribution,  living  in  security, 
comfort,  and  dignity,  under  the  protection  of  the  government 
which  they  laboured  to  destroy. 

I  see  a  large  body  of  civil  and  military  functionaries  resem- 
bling in  nothing  but  capacity  and  valour  those  adventurers 
who,  seventy  years  ago,  came  hither,  laden  with  wealth  and 
infamy,  to  parade  before  our  fathers  the  plundered  treasures  of 
Bengal  and  Tan j ore.  I  reflect  with  pride  that  to  the  doubtful 
splendour  which  surrounds  the  memory  of  Hastings  and  of 
Give,  we  can  oppose  the  spotless  glory  of  Elphinstone  and 
Munro.  I  contemplate  with  reverence  and  delight  the  honour- 
able poverty  which  is  the  evidence  of  rectitude  firmly  main- 
tained amidst  strong  temptations.  I  rejoice  to  see  my  country- 
men,   after    ruling    miUions  of  subjects,    after    commanding 


20  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

victorious  armies,  after  dictating  terms  of  peace  at  the  gates 
of  hostile  capitals,  after  administering  the  revenues  of  great 
provinces,  after  judging  the  causes  of  wealthy  Zemindars, 
after  residing  at  the  Courts  of  tributary  Kings,  return  to  their 
native  land  with  no  more  than  a  decent  competence. 

I  see  a  government  anxiously  bent  on  the  pubHc  good. 
Even  in  its  errors  I  recognise  a  paternal  feeling  towards  the 
great  people  committed  to  its  charge.  I  see  toleration  strictly 
maintained  ;  yet  I  see  bloody  and  degrading  superstitions 
gradually  losing  their  power.  I  see  the  morality,  the  philoso- 
phy, the  taste  of  Europe,  beginning  to  produce  a  salutary 
effect  on  the  hearts  and  understandings  of  our  subjects.  I 
see  the  public  mind  of  India,  that  public  mind  which  we  found 
debased  and  contracted  by  the  worst  forms  of  political  and 
religious  tyranny,  expanding  itself  to  just  and  noble  views 
of  the  ends  of  government  and  of  the  social  duties  of  man. 

I  see  evils  :  but  I  see  the  government  actively  employed  in 
the  work  of  remedying  those  evils.  The  taxation  is  heavy  ; 
but  the  work  of  retrenchment  is  unsparingly  pursued.  The 
mischiefs  arising  from  the  system  of  subsidiary  alliance  are 
great ;  but  the  rulers  of  India  are  fully  aware  of  those  mischiefs, 
and  are  engaged  in  guarding  against  them.  Wherever  they  now 
interfere  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  a  native  government, 
they  interfere  also  for  the  purpose  of  reforming  it. 

Seeing  these  things,  then,  am  I  prepared  to  discard  the 
Company  as  an  organ  of  government  ?  I  am  not.  Assuredly 
I  will  never  shrink  from  innovation  when  I  see  reason  to 
believe  that  innovation  will  be  improvement.  That  the 
present  government  does  not  shrink  from  innovations  which  it 
considers  as  improvements  the  Bill  now  before  the  House 
sufficiently  shows.  But  surely  the  burden  of  the  proof  lies 
on  the  innovators.  They  are  bound  to  show  that  there  is  a 
fair  probabihty  of  obtaining  some  advantage  before  they 
call  upon  us  to  take  up  the  foundations  of  the  Indian  govern- 
ment. I  have  no  superstitious  veneration  for  the  Court  of 
Directors  or  the  Court  of  Proprietors.  Find  me  a  better 
Council :  find  me  a  better  constituent  body  :  and  I  am  ready 
for  a  change.  But  of  all  the  substitutes  for  the  Company 
which  have  hitherto  been  suggested,  not  one  has  been  proved 
to  be  better  than  the  Company,  and  most  of  them  I  could,  I 
think,  easily  prove  to  be  worse.     Circumstances  might  force 


MACAULAY  21 

us  to  hazard  a  change.  If  the  Company  were  to  refuse  to  accept 
of  the  government  unless  we  would  grant  pecuniary  terms 
which  I  thought  extravagant,  or  unless  we  gave  up  the  clauses 
in  this  Bill  which  permit  Europeans  to  hold  landed  property 
and  natives  to  hold  office,  I  would  take  them  at  their  word. 
But  I  will  not  discard  them  in  the  mere  rage  of  experiment. 

Do  I  call  the  government  of  India  a  perfect  government  ? 
Very  far  from  it.  No  nation  can  be  perfectly  well  governed 
till  it  is  competent  to  govern  itself.  I  compare  the  Indian 
government  with  other  governments  of  the  same  class,  with 
despotisms,  with  mihtary  despotisms,  and  I  find  none  that 
approaches  it  in  excellence.  I  compare  it  with  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Roman  provinces,  with  the  government  of  the 
Spanish  colonies,  and  I  am  proud  of  my  country  and  my  age. 
Here  are  100,000,000  of  people  under  the  absolute  rule  of  a 
few  strangers,  differing  from  them  physically,  differing  from 
them  morally,  mere  Mamelukes,  not  bom  in  the  country 
which  they  rule,  not  meaning  to  lay  their  bones  in  it.  If  you 
require  me  to  make  this  government  as  good  as  that  of  England, 
France,  or  the  United  States  of  America,  I  own  frankly  that  I 
can  do  no  such  thing.  Reasoning  a  priori  I  should  have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  such  a  government  must  be  a  horrible 
tyranny.  It  is  a  source  of  constant  amazement  to  me  that 
it  is  so  good  as  I  find  it  to  be.  I  will  not,  therefore,  in  a  case 
in  which  I  have  neither  principles  nor  precedents  to  guide  me, 
pull  down  the  existing  system  on  account  of  its  theoretical 
defects.  For  I  know  that  any  system  which  I  could  put  in  its 
place  would  be  equally  condemned  by  theory,  while  it  would 
not  be  equally  sanctioned  by  experience. 

Some  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  Company  was,  as  I 
have  shown,  rendered  inevitable  by  the  opening  of  the  China 
trade  ;  and  it  was  the  duty  of  the  government  to  take  care 
that  the  change  should  not  be  prejudicial  to  India.  There 
were  many  ways  in  which  the  compromise  between  commerce 
and  tyranny  might  be  effected.  We  might  have  taken  the 
assets,  and  paid  a  sum  down,  leaving  the  Company  to  invest 
that  sum  as  they  chose.  We  might  have  offered  English 
security  with  a  lower  interest.  We  might  have  taken  the 
course  which  the  late  Ministers  designed  to  take.  They 
would  have  left  the  Company  in  possession  of  the  means  of 
carrying  on  its  trade  in  competition  with  private  merchants. 


22  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

My  firm  belief  is  that,  if  this  course  had  been  taken,  the  Com- 
pany must,  in  a  very  few  years,  have  abandoned  the  trade, 
or  the  trade  would  have  ruined  the  Company.  It  was  not, 
however,  solely  or  principally  by  regard  for  the  interest  of 
the  Company,  or  of  EngUsh  merchants  generally,  that  the 
government  was  guided  on  this  occasion.  The  course  which 
appeared  to  us  the  most  hkely  to  promote  the  interests  of  our 
Eastern  Empire  was  to  make  the  proprietors  of  India  stock 
creditors  of  the  Indian  territory.  Their  interest  will  thus  be 
in  a  great  measure  the  same  with  the  interest  of  the  people 
whom  they  are  to  rule.  Their  income  will  depend  on  the 
revenues  of  their  empire.  The  revenues  of  their  empire  wiU 
depend  on  the  manner  in  which  the  affairs  of  that  empire 
are  administered.  We  furnish  them  with  the  strongest 
motives  to  watch  over  the  interests  of  the  cultivator  and  the 
trader,  to  maintain  peace,  to  carry  on  with  vigour  the  work 
of  retrenchment,  to  detect  and  punish  extortion  and  corruption. 
Though  they  Hve  at  a  distance  from  India,  though  few  of  them 
have  ever  seen,  or  may  ever  see,  the  people  whom  they  rule, 
they  will  have  a  great  stake  in  the  happiness  of  their  subjects. 
If  their  misgovemment  should  produce  disorder  in  the  finances, 
they  will  themselves  feel  the  effects  of  that  disorder  in  their 
own  household  expenses.  I  believe  this  to  be,  next  to  a 
representative  constitution,  the  constitution  which  is  the  best 
security  for  good  government.  A  representative  constitution 
India  cannot  at  present  have.  And  we  have,  therefore,  I 
think,  given  her  the  best  constitution  of  which  she  is  capable. 

One  word  as  to  the  new  arrangement  which  we  propose 
with  respect  to  the  patronage.  It  is  intended  to  introduce 
the  principle  of  com-petition  in  the  disposal  of  writerships,  and 
from  this  change  I  cannot  but  anticipate  the  happiest  results. 
The  civil  servants  of  the  Company  are  undoubtedly  a  highly 
respectable  body  of  men  ;  and  in  that  body,  as  in  every 
large  body,  there  are  some  persons  of  very  eminent  abihty. 
I  rejoice  most  cordially  to  see  this.  I  rejoice  to  see  that 
the  standard  of  morahty  is  so  high  in  England,  that  intelligence 
is  so  generally  diffused  through  England,  that  young  persons 
who  are  taken  from  the  mass  of  society,  by  favour  and  not 
by  merit,  and  who  are  therefore  only  fair  samples  of  the  mass, 
should,  when  placed  in  situations  of  high  importance,  be  so 
seldom  found  wanting.     But  it  is  not  the  less  true  that  India 


MACAULAY  23 

is  entitled  to  the  service  of  the  best  talents  which  England 
can  spare.  That  the  average  of  intelligence  and  virtue  is  very 
high  in  this  country  is  matter  for  honest  exultation.  But  it 
is  no  reason  for  employing  average  men  when  you  can  obtain 
superior  men. 

Consider,  too,  Sir,  how  rapidly  the  pubUc  mind  of  India  is 
advancing,  how  much  attention  is  already  paid  by  the  higher 
classes  of  the  natives  to  those  intellectual  pursuits  on  the 
culture  of  which  the  superiority  of  the  European  race  to  the 
rest  of  mankind  principally  depends.  Surely,  in  such  circum- 
stances, from  motives  of  selfish  pohcy,  if  from  no  higher  motive, 
we  ought  to  fill  the  magistracies  of  our  Eastern  Empire  with 
men  who  may  do  honour  to  their  country,  with  men  who  may 
represent  the  best  part  of  the  Enghsh  nation.  This,  Sir,  is 
our  object ;  and  we  beheve  that  by  the  plan  which  is  now 
proposed  this  object  wiU  be  attained.  It  is  proposed  that  for 
every  vacancy  in  the  civil  service  four  candidates  shall  be  named, 
and  the  best  candidate  selected  by  examination.  We  conceive 
that,  under  this  system,  the  persons  sent  out  wiU  be  young 
men  above  par,  young  men  superior,  either  in  talents  or  in 
dihgence,  to  the  mass.  It  is  said,  I  know,  that  examinations 
in  Latin,  in  Greek,  and  in  mathematics,  are  no  test  of  what 
men  will  prove  to  be  in  Ufe.  I  am  perfectly  aware  that  they 
are  not  infalUble  tests  :  but  that  they  are  tests  I  confidently 
maintain.  Look  at  every  walk  of  life,  at  this  House,  at  the 
other  House,  at  the  Bar,  at  the  Bench,  at  the  Church,  and 
see  whether  it  be  not  true  that  those  who  attain  high  dis- 
tinction in  the  world  were  generally  men  who  were  distinguished 
in  their  academic  career.  Indeed,  Sir,  this  objection  would 
prove  far  too  much  even  for  those  who  use  it.  It  would  prove 
that  there  is  no  use  at  all  in  education.  Why  should  we  put 
boys  out  of  their  way  ?  Why  should  we  force  a  lad,  who 
would  much  rather  fly  a  kite  or  trundle  a  hoop,  to  learn  his 
Latin  Grammar  ?  Why  should  we  keep  a  young  man  to  his 
Thucydides  or  his  Laplace,  when  he  would  much  rather  be 
shooting  ?  Education  would  be  mere  useless  torture,  if,  at 
two  or  three  and  twenty,  a  man  who  had  neglected  his  studies 
were  exactly  on  a  par  with  a  man  who  had  apphed  himself  to 
them,  exactly  as  hkely  to  perform  all  the  offices  of  pubUc 
Hfe  with  credit  to  himself  and  with  advantage  to  society. 
Whether  the  Enghsh  system  of  education  be  good  or  bad  is 


24  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

not  now  the  question.  Perhaps  I  may  think  that  too  much 
time  is  given  to  the  ancient  languages  and  to  the  abstract 
sciences.  But  what  then  ?  Whatever  be  the  languages, 
whatever  be  the  sciences,  which  it  is  in  any  age  or  country  the 
fashion  to  teach,  the  persons  who  become  the  greatest  pro- 
ficients in  those  languages  and  those  sciences  will  generally 
be  the  flower  of  the  youth,  the  most  acute,  the  most  industrious, 
the  most  ambitious  of  honourable  distinctions.  If  the  Ptole- 
maic system  were  taught  at  Cambridge  instead  of  the  New- 
tonian, the  senior  wrangler  would  nevertheless  be  in  general 
a  superior  man  to  the  wooden  spoon.  If,  instead  of  learning 
Greek,  we  learned  the  Cherokee,  the  man  who  understood 
the  Cherokee  best,  who  made  the  most  correct  and  melodious 
Cherokee  verses,  who  comprehended  most  rapidly  the  effect 
of  the  Cherokee  particles,  would  generally  be  a  superior  man 
to  him  who  was  destitute  of  these  accomplishments.  If 
astrology  were  taught  at  our  Universities,  the  young  man  who 
cast  nativities  best  would  generally  turn  out  a  superior  man. 
If  alchemy  were  taught,  the  yoimg  man  who  showed  most 
activity  in  the  pursuit  of  the  philosopher's  stone  would 
generally  turn  out  a  superior  man. 

I  will  only  add  one  other  observation  on  this  subject. 
Although  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  too  exclusive  an  attention 
is  paid  in  the  education  of  young  Enghsh  gentlemen  to  the  dead 
languages,  I  conceive  that  when  you  are  choosing  men  to  fill 
situations  for  which  the  very  first  and  most  indispensable 
qualification  is  familiarity  with  foreign  languages,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  find  a  better  test  of  their  fitness  than  their  classical 
acquirements. 

Some  persons  have  expressed  doubts  as  to  the  possibility 
of  procuring  fair  examinations.  I  am  quite  sure  that  no 
person  who  has  been  either  at  Cambridge  or  at  Oxford  can 
entertain  such  doubts.  I  feel,  indeed,  that  I  ought  to  apologise 
for  even  noticing  an  objection  so  frivolous. 

Next  to  the  opening  of  the  China  trade,  Sir,  the  change 
most  eagerly  demanded  by  the  English  people  was,  that  the 
restrictions  on  the  admission  of  Europeans  to  India  should  be 
removed.  In  this  change  there  are  undoubtedly  very  great 
advantages.  The  chief  advantage  is,  I  think,  the  improve- 
ment which  the  minds  of  our  native  subjects  may  be  expected 
to  derive  from  free  intercourse  with  a  people  far  advanced 


MACAULAY  25 

beyond  themselves  in  intellectual  cultivation.  I  cannot  deny, 
however,  that  the  advantages  are  attended  with  some  danger. 

The  danger  is  that  the  new-comers,  belonging  to  the  ruling 
nation,  resembhng  in  colour,  in  language,  in  manners,  those 
who  hold  supreme  mihtary  and  poHtical  power,  and  differing  in 
all  these  respects  from  the  great  mass  of  the  population,  may 
consider  themselves  as  a  superior  class,  and  may  trample 
on  the  indigenous  race.  Hitherto  there  have  been  strong 
restraints  on  Europeans  resident  in  India.  Licences  were 
not  easily  obtained.  Those  residents  who  were  in  the  service 
of  the  Company  had  obvious  motives  for  conducting  themselves 
with  propriety.  If  they  incurred  the  serious  displeasure  of 
the  government,  their  hopes  of  promotion  were  blighted. 
Even  those  who  were  not  in  the  public  service  were  subject 
to  the  formidable  power  which  the  government  possessed  of 
banishing  them  at  its  pleasure. 

The  licence  of  the  government  will  now  no  longer  be  necessary 
to  persons  who  desire  to  reside  in  the  settled  provinces  of  India. 
The  power  of  arbitrary  deportation  is  withdrawn.  Unless, 
therefore,  we  mean  to  leave  the  natives  exposed  to  the  tyranny 
and  insolence  of  every  profligate  adventurer  who  may  visit 
the  East,  we  must  place  the  European  under  the  same  power 
which  legislates  for  the  Hindoo.  No  man  loves  pohtical 
freedom  more  than  I.  But  a  privilege  enjoyed  by  a  few 
individuals  in  the  midst  of  a  vast  population  who  do  not  enjoy 
it,  ought  not  to  be  called  freedom.  It  is  tyranny.  In  the 
West  Indies  I  have  not  the  least  doubt  that  the  existence  of 
Trial  by  Jury  and  of  Legislative  Assemblies  has  tended  to 
make  the  condition  of  the  slaves  worse  than  it  would  otherwise 
have  been.  Or,  to  go  to  India  itself  for  an  instance,  though 
I  fully  beheve  that  a  mild  penal  code  is  better  than  a  severe 
penal  code,  the  worst  of  all  systems  was  surely  that  of  having 
a  mild  penal  code  for  the  Brahmins,  who  sprang  from  the  head 
of  the  Creator,  while  there  was  a  severe  code  for  the  Sudras, 
who  sprang  from  His  feet.  India  has  suffered  enough  already 
from  the  distinction  of  castes,  and  from  the  deeply  rooted 
prejudices  which  that  distinction  has  engendered.  God  forbid 
that  we  should  inflict  on  her  the  curse  of  a  new  caste,  that  we 
should  send  her  a  new  breed  of  Brahmins,  authorised  to  treat 
all  the  native  population  as  Pariahs  ! 

With  a  view  to  the  prevention  of  this  evil,  we  propose  to 


26  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

give  to  the  supreme  government  the  power  of  legislating  for 
Europeans  as  well  as  for  natives.  We  propose  that  the  regu- 
lations of  the  government  shall  bind  the  King's  Courts  as  they 
bind  all  other  courts,  and  that  registration  by  the  Judges  of 
the  King's  Courts  shall  no  longer  be  necessary  to  give  vaUdity 
to  those  regulations  within  the  towns  of  Calcutta,  Madras,  and 
Bombay. 

I  could  scarcely,  Sir,  believe  my  ears  when  I  heard  this 
part  of  our  plan  condemned  in  another  place.  I  should  have 
thought  that  it  would  have  been  received  with  pecuUar  favour 
in  that  quarter  where  it  has  met  with  the  most  severe  con- 
demnation. What,  at  present,  is  the  case  ?  If  the  supreme 
Court  and  the  government  differ  on  a  question  of  jurisdiction, 
or  on  a  question  of  legislation  within  the  towns  which  are  the 
seats  of  government,  there  is  absolutely  no  umpire  but  the 
Imperial  Parhament.  The  device  of  putting  one  wild  elephant 
between  two  tame  elephants  was  ingenious  ;  but  it  may  not 
always  be  practicable.  Suppose  a  tame  elephant  between  two 
wild  elephants,  or  suppose  that  the  whole  herd  should  run 
wild  together.  The  thing  is  not  without  example.  And  is  it 
not  most  unjust  and  ridiculous  that,  on  one  side  of  a  ditch, 
the  edict  of  the  Governor-General  should  have  the  force  of 
law,  and  that  on  the  other  side  it  should  be  of  no  effect  unless 
registered  by  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  ?  If  the 
registration  be  not  a  security  for  good  legislation,  why  give 
it  to  any  ?  Is  the  system  good  ?  Extend  it.  Is  it  bad  ? 
Abolish  it.  But  in  the  name  of  common-sense  do  not  leave  it 
as  it  is.  It  is  as  absurd  as  our  old  law  of  sanctuary.  The 
law  which  authorises  imprisonment  for  debt  may  be  good  or 
bad.  But  no  man  in  his  senses  can  approve  of  the  ancient 
system  under  which  a  debtor  who  might  be  arrested  in  Fleet 
Street  was  safe  as  soon  as  he  had  scampered  into  Whitefriars. 
Just  in  the  same  way,  doubts  may  fairly  be  entertained  about 
the  expediency  of  allowing  four  or  live  persons  to  make  laws 
for  India  ;  but  to  allow  them  to  make  laws  for  all  India  without 
the  Mahratta  ditch,  and  to  except  Calcutta,  is  the  height  of 
absurdity. 

I  say,  therefore,  that  you  must  enlarge  the  power  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  give  it  a  general  veto  on  laws,  or  you  must 
enlarge  the  power  of  the  government,  and  make  its  regulations 
binding  on  aU  Courts  without  distinction.     The  former  course 


MACAULAY  27 

no  person  has  ventured  to  propose.  To  the  latter  course 
objections  have  been  made  ;  but  objections  which  to  me, 
I  must  own,  seem  altogether  frivolous. 

It  is  acknowledged  that  of  late  years  inconvenience  has 
arisen  from  the  relation  in  which  the  Supreme  Court  stands 
to  the  government.  But,  it  is  said,  that  the  Court  was  origin- 
ally instituted  for  the  protection  of  natives  against  Europeans. 
The  wise  course  would  therefore  be  to  restore  its  original 
character. 

Now,  Sir,  the  fact  is,  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  never  been 
so  mischievous  as  during  the  first  ten  years  of  its  power,  or  so 
respectable  as  it  has  lately  been.  Everybody  who  knows 
anything  of  its  early  history  knows  that,  during  a  considerable 
time,  it  was  the  terror  of  Bengal,  the  scourge  of  the  native 
population,  the  screen  of  European  dehnquents,  a  convenient 
tool  of  the  government  for  all  purposes  of  evil,  an  insurmount- 
able obstacle  to  the  government  in  all  undertakings  for  the 
pubhc  good  ;  that  its  proceedings  were  made  up  of  pedantry, 
cruelty,  and  corruption  ;  that  its  disputes  with  the  govern- 
ment were  at  one  time  on  the  point  of  breaking  up  the  whole 
fabric  of  society  ;  and  that  a  convulsion  was  averted  only 
by  the  dexterous  pohcy  of  Warren  Hastings,  who  at  last 
bought  off  the  opposition  of  the  Chief  Justice  for  £8,000  a 
year.  It  is  notorious  that,  while  the  Supreme  Court  opposed 
Hastings  in  all  his  best  measures,  it  was  a  thoroughgoing 
accomplice  in  his  worst ;  that  it  took  part  in  the  most  scandalous 
of  those  proceedings  which,  fifty  years  ago,  roused  the  indigna- 
tion of  ParUament  and  of  the  country  ;  that  it  assisted  in  the 
spoliation  of  the  princesses  of  Oude  ;  that  it  passed  sentence 
of  death  on  Nuncomar.  And  this  is  the  Court  which  we  are 
to  rescue  from  its  present  state  of  degeneracy  to  its  original 
purity.  This  is  the  protection  which  we  are  to  give  to  the 
natives  against  the  Europeans.  Sir,  so  far  is  it  from  being 
true  that  the  character  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  deteriorated, 
that  it  has,  perhaps,  improved  more  than  any  other  institution 
in  India.  But  the  evil  hes  deep  in  the  nature  of  the  institution 
itself.  The  judges  have  in  our  time  deserved  the  greatest 
respect.  Their  judgment  and  integrity  have  done  much 
to  mitigate  the  vices  of  the  system.  The  worst  charge  that 
can  be  brought  against  any  of  them  is  that  of  pertinacity, 
disinterested,   conscientious   pertinacity,   in   error.     The   real 


28  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

evil  is  the  state  of  the  law.  You  have  two  supreme  powers 
in  India.  There  is  no  arbitrator  except  a  Legislature  15,000 
miles  off.  Such  a  system  is  on  the  face  of  it  an  absurdity  in 
politics.  My  wonder  is,  not  that  this  system  has  several  times 
been  on  the  point  of  producing  fatal  consequences  to  the 
peace  and  resources  of  India — those,  I  think,  are  the  words 
in  which  Warren  Hastings  described  the  effect  of  the  contest 
between  his  government  and  the  judges — but  that  it  has 
not  actually  produced  such  consequences,  The  most  dis- 
tinguished members  of  the  Indian  government,  the  most 
distinguished  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  call  upon  you  to 
reform  this  system.  Sir  Charles  Metcalfe,  Sir  Charles  Grey, 
represent  with  equal  urgency  the  expediency  of  having  one 
single  paramount  council  armed  with  legislative  power.  The 
admission  of  Europeans  to  India  renders  it  absolutely  necessary 
not  to  delay  our  decision.  The  effect  of  that  admission 
would  be  to  raise  a  hundred  questions,  to  produce  a  hundred 
contests  between  the  Council  and  the  judicature.  The  govern- 
ment would  be  paralysed  at  the  precise  moment  at  which 
all  its  energy  was  required.  While  the  two  equal  powers 
were  acting  in  opposite  directions,  the  whole  machine  of  the 
state  would  stand  still.  The  Europeans  would  be  uncontrolled. 
The  natives  would  be  unprotected.  The  consequences  I  will 
not  pretend  to  foresee.  Everything  beyond  is  darkness  and 
confusion. 

Having  given  to  the  government  supreme  legislative  power, 
we  next  propose  to  give  it  for  a  time  the  assistance  of  a  Com- 
mission for  the  purpose  of  digesting  and  reforming  the  laws 
of  India,  so  that  those  laws  may,  as  soon  as  possible,  be  formed 
into  a  code.  Gentlemen  of  whom  I  wish  to  speak  with  the 
highest  respect  have  expressed  a  doubt  whether  India  be  at 
present  in  a  fit  state  to  receive  a  benefit  which  is  not  yet 
enjoyed  by  this  free  and  highly  civihsed  country.  Sir,  I  can 
allow  to  this  argument  very  little  weight  beyond  that  which  it 
derives  from  the  personal  authority  of  those  who  use  it.  For, 
in  the  first  place,  our  freedom  and  our  high  civihsation  make 
this  improvement,  desirable  as  it  must  always  be,  less  indis- 
pensably necessary  to  us  than  to  our  Indian  subjects  ;  and  in 
the  next  place  our  freedom  and  civihsation,  I  fear,  make  it 
far  more  difhcult  for  us  to  obtain  this  benefit  for  ourselves  than 
to  bestow  it  on  them. 


MACAULAY  29 

I  believe  that  no  country  ever  stood  so  much  in  need  of  a  code 
of  laws  as  India  ;  and  I  believe  also  that  there  never  was  a 
country  in  which  the  want  might  so  easily  be  suppHed.  I  said 
that  there  were  many  points  of  analogy  between  the  state 
of  that  country  after  the  fall  of  the  Mogul  power,  and  the 
state  of  Europe  after  the  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  In  one 
respect  the  analogy  is  very  striking.  As  there  were  in  Europe 
then,  so  there  are  in  India  now,  several  systems  of  law  widely 
differing  from  each  other,  but  coexisting  and  coequal.  The 
indigenous  population  has  its  own  laws.  Each  of  the  successive 
races  of  conquerors  has  brought  with  it  its  own  peculiar 
jurisprudence  :  the  Mussulman  his  Koran  and  the  innumerable 
commentators  on  the  Koran  ;  the  EngHshman  his  Statute 
Book  and  his  Term  Reports.  As  there  were  estabhshed  in  Italy, 
at  one  and  the  same  time,  the  Roman  law,  the  Lombard  law, 
the  Ripuarian  law,  the  Bavarian  law,  and  the  Salic  law,  so  we 
have  now  in  our  Eastern  empire  Hindoo  law,  Mahometan  law, 
Parsee  law,  EngUsh  law,  perpetually  minghng  with  each  other 
and  disturbing  each  other,  varying  with  the  person,  varying 
with  the  place.  In  one  and  the  same  cause  the  process  and 
pleadings  are  in  the  fashion  of  one  nation,  the  judgment  is 
according  to  the  laws  of  another.  An  issue  is  evolved  according 
to  the  rules  of  Westminster,  and  decided  according  to  those 
of  Benares.  The  only  Mahometan  book  in  the  nature  of  a 
code  is  the  Koran  ;  the  only  Hindoo  book  the  Institutes. 
Everybody  who  knows  those  books  knows  that  they  provide 
for  a  very  small  part  of  the  cases  which  must  arise  in  every 
community.  All  beyond  them  is  comment  and  tradition. 
Our  regulations  in  civil  matters  do  not  defiae  rights,  but  merely 
establish  remedies.  If  a  point  of  Hindoo  law  arises,  the 
judge  calls  on  the  Pundit  for  an  opinion.  If  a  point  of 
Mahometan  law  arises,  the  judge  apphes  to  the  Cauzee.  What 
the  integrity  of  these  functionaries  is,  we  may  learn  from  Sir 
William  Jones.  That  eminent  man  declared  that  he  could 
not  answer  it  to  his  conscience  to  decide  any  point  of  law  on 
the  faith  of  a  Hindoo  expositor.  Sir  Thomas  Strange  confirms 
this  declaration.  Even  if  there  were  no  suspicion  of  corruption 
on  the  part  of  the  interpreters  of  the  law,  the  science  which  they 
profess  is  in  such  a  state  of  confusion  that  no  reUance  can  be 
placed  on  their  answers.  Sir  Francis  Macnaghten  tells  us 
that  it  is  a  delusion  to  fancy  that  there  is  any  known  and  fixed 


30  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

law  under  which  the  Hindoo  people  live  ;  that  texts  may  be 
produced  on  any  side  of  any  question  ;  that  expositors  equal 
in  authority  perpetually  contradict  each  other ;  that  the 
obsolete  law  is  perpetually  confounded  with  the  law  actually 
in  force,  and  that  the  first  lesson  to  be  impressed  on  a  function- 
ary who  has  to  administer  Hindoo  law  is  that  it  is  vain  to  think 
of  extracting  certainty  from  the  books  of  the  jurist.  The 
consequence  is  that  in  practice  the  decisions  of  the  tribunals 
are  altogether  arbitrary.  What  is  administered  is  not  law, 
but  a  kind  of  rude  and  capricious  equity.  I  asked  an  able 
and  excellent  judge  lately  returned  from  India  how  one  of 
our  Zillah  Courts  would  decide  several  legal  questions  of  great 
importance,  questions  not  involving  considerations  of  religion 
or  of  caste,  mere  questions  of  commercial  law.  He  told  me 
that  it  was  a  mere  lottery.  He  knew  how  he  should  himself 
decide  them.  But  he  knew  nothing  more.  I  asked  a  most 
distinguished  civil  servant  of  the  Company,  with  reference 
to  the  clause  in  this  Bill  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  whether  at 
present,  if  a  dancing  girl  ran  away  from  her  master,  the  judge 
would  force  her  to  go  back.  "  Some  judges,"  he  said,  "  send 
a  girl  back.  Others  set  her  at  liberty.  The  whole  is  a  mere 
matter  of  chance.  Everything  depends  on  the  temper  of  the 
individual  judge." 

Even  in  this  country  we  have  had  complaints  of  judge-made 
law ;  even  in  this  country,  where  the  standard  of  morality 
is  higher  than  in  almost  any  other  part  of  the  world  ;  where, 
during  several  generations,  not  one  depositary  of  our  legal 
traditions  has  incurred  the  suspicion  of  personal  cor- 
ruption ;  where  there  are  popular  institutions  ;  where  every 
decision  is  watched  by  a  shrewd  and  learned  audience  ;  where 
there  is  an  intelligent  and  observant  public  ;  where  every 
remarkable  case  is  fully  reported  in  a  hundred  newspapers  ; 
where,  in  short,  there  is  everything  which  can  mitigate  the 
evils  of  such  a  system.  But  judge-made  law,  where  there  is  an 
absolute  government  and  a  low  morality,  where  there  is  no 
bar  and  no  public,  is  a  curse  and  a  scandal  not  to  be  endured. 
It  is  time  that  the  magistrate  should  know  what  law  he  is  to 
administer,  that  the  subject  should  know  under  what  law  he 
is  to  live.  We  no  not  mean  that  all  the  people  of  India  should 
live  under  the  same  law  :  far  from  it ;  there  is  not  a  word  in 
the  Bill,  there  was  not  a  word  in  my  right  honourable  friend's 


MACAULAY  31 

speech,  susceptible  of  such  an  interpretation.  We  know  how 
desirable  that  object  is  ;  but  we  also  know  that  it  is  unattain- 
able. We  know  that  respect  must  be  paid  to  feelings  generated 
by  differences  of  religion,  of  nation,  and  of  caste.  Much,  I 
am  persuaded,  may  be  done  to  assimilate  the  different  systems 
of  law  without  wounding  those  feehngs.  But,  whether  we 
assimilate  those  systems  or  not,  let  us  ascertain  them  ;  let 
us  digest  them.  We  propose  no  rash  innovation  ;  we  wish  to 
give  no  shock  to  the  prejudices  of  any  part  of  our  subjects. 
Our  principle  is  simply  this  ;  uniformity  when  you  can  have  it ; 
diversity  when  you  must  have  it ;   but  in  all  cases  certainty. 

As  I  believe  that  India  stands  more  in  need  of  a  code  than 
any  other  country  in  the  world,  I  believe  also  that  there  is 
no  country  on  which  that  great  benefit  can  more  easily  be 
conferred.  A  code  is  almost  the  only  blessing,  perhaps  it 
is  the  only  blessing,  which  absolute  governments  are  better 
fitted  to  confer  on  a  nation  than  popular  governments.  The 
work  of  digesting  a  vast  and  artificial  system  of  unwritten 
jurisprudence  is  far  more  easily  performed,  and  far  better 
performed,  by  few  minds  than  by  many,  by  a  Napoleon  than 
by  a  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  a  Chamber  of  Peers,  by  a 
government  like  that  of  Prussia  or  Denmark  than  by  a  govern- 
ment like  that  of  England.  A  quiet  knot  of  two  or  three 
veteran  jurists  is  an  infinitely  better  machinery  for  such  a 
purpose  than  a  large  popular  assembly  divided,  as  such  assem- 
blies always  are,  into  adverse  factions.  This  seems  to  me, 
therefore,  to  be  precisely  that  point  of  time  at  which  the 
advantage  of  a  complete  written  code  of  laws  may  most 
easily  be  conferred  on  India.  It  is  a  work  which  cannot  be 
well  performed  in  an  age  of  barbarism,  which  cannot  without 
great  difficulty  be  performed  in  an  age  of  freedom.  It  is  a 
work  which  especially  belongs  to  a  government  like  that  of 
India,  to  an  enlightened  and  paternal  despotism. 

I  have  detained  the  House  so  long,  Sir,  that  I  wiU  defer 
what  I  had  to  say  on  some  parts  of  this  measure,  important 
parts,  indeed,  but  far  less  important,  as  I  think,  than  those 
to  which  I  have  adverted,  till  we  are  in  Committee.  There 
is,  however,  one  part  of  the  Bill  on  which,  after  what  has 
recently  passed  elsewhere,  I  feel  myself  irresistibly  impelled 
to  say  a  few  words.  I  allude  to  that  wise,  that  benevolent, 
that  noble  clause,  which  enacts  that  no  native  of  our  Indian 


32  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

empire  shall,  by  reason  of  his  colour,  his  descent,  or  his  religion, 
be  incapable  of  holding  office.  At  the  risk  of  being  called  by 
that  nickname  which  is  regarded  as  the  most  opprobrious  of 
all  nicknames  by  men  of  selfish  hearts  and  contracted  minds, 
at  the  risk  of  being  called  a  philosopher,  I  must  say  that, 
to  the  last  day  of  my  hfe,  I  shall  be  proud  of  having  been  one 
of  those  who  assisted  in  the  framing  of  the  Bill  which  contains 
that  clause.  We  are  told  that  the  time  can  never  come  when 
the  natives  of  India  can  be  admitted  to  high  civil  and  military 
office.  We  are  told  that  this  is  the  condition  on  which  we 
hold  our  power.  We  are  told  that  we  are  bound  to  confer 
on  our  subjects  every  benefit — which  they  are  capable  of 
enjoying  ? — no  ;  but  which  we  can  confer  on  them  without 
hazard  to  the  perpetuity  of  our  own  denomination.  Against 
that  proposition  I  solemnly  protest  as  inconsistent  alike  with 
sound  policy  and  sound  morality. 

I  am  far,  very  far,  from  wishing  to  proceed  hastily  in  this 
most  dehcate  matter.  I  feel  that,  for  the  good  of  India  itself, 
the  admission  of  natives  to  high  office  must  be  effected  by  slow 
degrees.  But  that,  when  the  fulness  of  time  is  come,  when  the 
interest  of  India  requires  the  change,  we  ought  to  refuse  to 
make  that  change  lest  we  should  endanger  our  own  power, 
this  is  a  doctrine  of  which  I  cannot  think  without  indignation. 
Governments,  hke  men,  may  buy  existence  too  dear.  "  Propter 
vitam  Vivendi  perdere  causas  "  is  a  despicable  policy  both  in 
individuals  and  in  states.  In  the  present  case,  such  a  policy 
would  not  only  be  despicable,  but  absurd.  The  mere  extent 
of  empire  is  not  necessarily  an  advantage.  To  many  govern- 
ments it  has  been  cumbersome  ;  to  some  it  has  been  fatal.  It 
will  be  allowed  by  every  statesman  of  our  time  that  the 
prosperity  of  a  community  is  made  up  of  the  prosperity  of  those 
who  compose  the  community,  and  that  it  is  the  most  childish 
ambition  to  covet  dominion  which  adds  to  no  man's  comfort 
or  security.  To  the  great  trading  nation,  to  the  great  manu- 
facturing nation,  no  progress  which  any  portion  of  the  human 
race  can  make  in  knowledge,  in  taste  for  the  conveniences  of 
life,  or  in  the  wealth  by  which  those  conveniences  are  pro- 
duced, can  be  matter  of  indifference.  It  is  scarcely  possible 
to  calculate  the  benefits  which  we  might  derive  from  the 
diffusion  of  European  civilisation  among  the  vast  population 
of  the  East.     It  would  be,  on  the  most  selfish  view  of  the  case, 


MACAULAY  33 

far  better  for  us  that  the  people  of  India  were  well  governed 
and  independent  of  us,  than  iU  governed  and  subject  to  us  ; 
that  they  were  ruled  by  their  own  kings,  but  wearing  our 
broadcloth,  and  working  with  our  cutlery,  than  that  they  were 
performing  their  salaams  to  EngUsh  collectors  and  Enghsh 
magistrates,  but  were  too  ignorant  to  value  or  too  poor  to  buy, 
English  manufactures.  To  trade  with  civilised  men  is  infinitely 
more  profitable  than  to  govern  savages.  That  would,  indeed, 
be  a  doting  wisdom,  which,  in  order  that  India  might  remain 
a  dependency,  would  make  it  a  useless  and  costly  dependency, 
which  would  keep  100,000,000  of  men  from  being  our  customers 
in  order  that  they  might  continue  to  be  our  slaves. 

It  was,  as  Bernier  tells,  the  practice  of  the  miserable  tyrants 
whom  he  found  in  India,  when  they  dreaded  the  capacity 
and  spirit  of  some  distinguished  subject,  and  yet  could  not 
venture  to  murder  him,  to  administer  to  him  a  daily  dose 
of  the  pousta,  a  preparation  of  opium,  the  effect  of  which 
was  in  a  few  months  to  destroy  aU  the  bodily  and  mental 
powers  of  the  wretch  who  was  drugged  with  it,  and  to  turn 
him  into  a  helpless  idiot.  The  detestable  artifice,  more 
horrible  than  assassination  itself,  was  worthy  of  those  who 
employed  it.  It  is  no  model  for  the  English  nation.  We  shall 
never  consent  to  administer  the  pousta  to  a  whole  community, 
to  stupify  and  paralyse  a  great  people  whom  God  has  committed 
to  our  charge,  for  the  wretched  purpose  of  rendering  them 
more  amenable  to  our  control.  What  is  power  worth  if  it  is 
founded  on  vice,  on  ignorance,  and  on  misery  ;  if  we  can  hold 
it  only  by  violating  the  most  sacred  duties  which  as  governors 
we  owe  to  the  governed,  and  which,  as  a  people  blessed  with 
far  more  than  an  ordinary  measure  of  poHtical  liberty  and  of 
intellectual  hght,  we  owe  to  a  race  debased  by  3,000  years  of 
despotism  and  priestcraft  ?  We  are  free,  we  are  civilised,  to 
very  Uttle  purpose,  if  we  grudge  to  any  portion  of  the  human 
race  an  equal  measure  of  freedom  and  civihsation. 

Are  we  to  keep  the  people  of  India  ignorant  in  order  that  we 
may  keep  them  submissive  ?  Or  do  we  think  that  we  can  give 
them  knowledge  without  awakening  ambition  ?  Or  do  we 
mean  to  awaken  ambition  and  to  provide  it  with  no  legitimate 
vent  ?  Who  will  answer  any  of  these  questions  in  the 
affirmative  ?  Yet  one  of  them  must  be  answered  in  the 
affirmative  by  every  person  who  maintains  that  we  ought 

3— (2I7I) 


34  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

permanently  to  exclude  the  natives  from  high  office.  I  have 
no  fears.  The  path  of  duty  is  plain  before  us  :  and  it  is  also 
the  path  of  wisdom,  of  national  prosperity,  of  national  honour. 
The  destinies  of  our  Indian  empire  are  covered  with  thick 
darkness.  It  is  difficult  to  form  any  conjecture  as  to  the  fate 
reserved  for  a  state  which  resembles  no  other  in  history,  and 
which  forms  by  itself  a  separate  class  of  political  phenomena. 
The  laws  which  regulate  its  growth  and  its  decay  are  still  un- 
known to  us.  It  may  be  that  the  pubhc  mind  of  India  may 
expand  under  our  system  till  it  has  outgrown  that  system  ; 
that  by  good  government  we  may  educate  our  subjects  into 
a  capacity  for  better  government ;  that,  having  become 
instructed  in  European  knowledge,  they  may,  in  some  future 
age,  demand  European  institutions.  Whether  such  a  day 
will  ever  come  I  know  not.  But  never  will  I  attempt  to  avert 
or  to  retard  it.  Whenever  it  comes,  it  will  be  the  proudest 
day  in  Enghsh  history.  To  have  found  a  great  people  sunk 
in  the  lowest  depths  of  slavery  and  superstition,  to  have  so 
ruled  them  as  to  have  made  them  desirous  and  capable  of  all 
the  privileges  of  citizens,  would  indeed  be  a  title  to  glory  aU 
our  own.  The  sceptre  may  pass  away  from  us.  Unforeseen 
accidents  may  derange  our  most  profound  schemes  of  policy. 
Victory  may  be  inconstant  to  our  arms.  But  there  are  triumphs 
which  are  followed  by  no  reverse.  There  is  an  empire  exempt 
from  all  natural  causes  of  decay.  Those  triumphs  are  the 
pacific  triumphs  of  reason  over  barbarism  ;  that  empire  is 
the  imperishable  empire  of  our  arts  and  our  morals,  our 
literature  and  our  laws. 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

The  position  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  when  he  was  first  elected 
President  of  the  United  States,  is  one  of  the  most  curious, 
interesting,  delicate,  and  difficult  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
His  majority  was  large,  and  he  enjoyed  the  entire  confidence 
of  the  Repubhcan  party.  But  in  the  Southern  States  there 
was  no  Republican  party  worth  mentioning,  and  the  Northern 
Democrats  regarded  him  with  undisguised  suspicion.  He 
himself,  in  the  touching  speech  which  he  delivered  to  his  feUow- 
townsmen  on  his  departure  for  the  capital,  described  his  task 
as  greater  than  that  which  rested  on  Washington.  What  was 
that  task  ?  It  was  simply  to  maintain  the  Union  which  Wash- 
ington had  founded.  He  disclaimed  from  the  outset  the  idea 
that  it  was  his  business  or  his  duty  to  abolish  slavery.  Long 
before  the  Civil  War  was  over  it  became  clear  that  abolition  was 
inevitable.  But  when  Lincoln  was  inaugurated,  he  still  hoped 
that,  though  shots  had  been  actually  fired,  a  peaceful  settlement 
might  be  found.  He  expressly  and  in  terms  declared  that  there 
would  be  no  interference  with  the  "  peculiar  institution  "  in 
the  Slave  States,  AU  Territories,  being  subject  to  Congress, 
would  be  free,  and  any  new  State  would  be  prohibited  by  its 
Constitution  from  recognising  slavery.  The  real  origin  of  the 
War  was  the  assertion  by  the  Southern  States  of  a  right  to 
secede  from  the  Union.  Their  secession  would,  of  course,  have 
created  a  great  Slave  Republic,  and  have  led  to  incalculable 
consequences.  But  Lincoln  steadily  refused  to  look  beyond 
the  question  of  the  Union.  That,  he  said,  it  was  the  President's 
duty,  as  Head  of  the  Executive,  to  enforce.  He  was  sworn 
to  do  so,  and  he  would  keep  his  oath.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  alleged  right  to  secede  without  altering  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  indeed  without  whoUy  transforming  it, 
was  entirely  destructive  of  the  Union.     For  there  could  be  no 

35 


36  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

question  of  a  good  or  a  bad  cause,  a  complete  or  an  incomplete 
justification.  The  right  of  leaving  the  Federation  implied  the 
right  of  leaving  it  on  the  flimsiest  as  well  as  on  the  weightiest 
grounds.  It  was  impossible  for  the  Federal  Government 
to  say,  "  You  are  entitled  to  set  up  for  yourselves,  but  only 
on  a  pretext  satisfactory  to  us."  The  strength  and  the  weak- 
ness of  Lincoln's  position  lay  in  the  fact  that,  on  the  one  hand, 
the  case  for  the  Union  was  logically  irresistible,  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  was  only  the  abolition  of  slavery,  which  had  to  be 
kept  in  the  background,  that  inspired  the  sHghtest  enthusiasm. 

First  Inaugural  Address,  March  4,   1861 

Fellow-Citizens  of  the  United  States, — In  compliance 
with  a  custom  as  old  as  the  Government  itself,  I  appear  before 
you  to  address  you  briefly,  and  to  take,  in  your  presence,  the 
oath  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to 
be  taken  by  the  President  before  he  enters  on  the  execution 
of  his  office. 

I  do  not  consider  it  necessary,  at  present,  for  me  to  discuss 
those  matters  of  administration  about  which  there  is  no  special 
anxiety  or  excitement.  Apprehension  seems  to  exist  among 
the  people  of  the  Southern  States,  that,  by  the  accession  of  a 
Republican  Administration,  their  property  and  their  peace 
and  personal  security  are  to  be  endangered.  There  has  never 
been  any  reasonable  cause  for  such  apprehension.  Indeed, 
the  most  ample  evidence  to  the  contrary  has  all  the  while 
existed  and  been  open  to  their  inspection.  It  is  found  in 
nearly  all  the  public  speeches  of  him  who  now  addresses  you. 
I  do  but  quote  from  one  of  those  speeches,  when  I  declare 
that  "  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere 
with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists." 
I  beUeve  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so  ;  and  I  have  no 
inclination  to  do  so.  Those  who  nominated  and  elected  me, 
did  so  with  the  full  knowledge  that  I  had  made  this,  and 
many  similar  declarations,  and  had  never  recanted  them. 
And,  more  than  this,  they  placed  in  the  platform,  for  my 
acceptance,  and  as  a  law  to  themselves  and  to  me,  the  clear 
and  emphatic  resolution  which  I  now  read — 


LINCOLN  37 

"  Resolved,  That  the  maintenance  inviolate  of  the  rights  of 
the  States,  and  especially  the  right  of  each  State  to  order 
and  control  its  own  domestic  institutions  according  to  its 
own  judgment  exclusively,  is  essential  to  that  balance  of  power 
on  which  the  perfection  and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric 
depend  ;  and  we  denounce  the  lawless  invasion,  by  armed 
force,  of  the  soil  of  any  State  or  Territory,  no  matter  under 
what  pretext,  as  among  the  gravest  of  crimes." 

I  now  reiterate  these  sentiments  ;  and  in  doing  so,  I  only 
press  upon  the  public  attention  the  most  conclusive  evidence 
of  which  the  case  is  susceptible,  that  the  property,  peace, 
and  security  of  no  section  are  to  be  in  any  wise  endangered 
by  the  now  incoming  administration. 

I  add,  too,  that  all  the  protection  which,  consistently  with 
the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  can  be  given,  will  be  cheer- 
fully given  to  all  the  States  when  lawfully  demanded,  for 
whatever  cause,  as  cheerfully  to  one  section  as  to  another. 

There  is  much  controversy  about  the  delivering  up  of 
fugitives  from  service  to  labour.  This  clause  I  now  read  is 
as  plainly  written  in  the  Constitution  as  any  of  its  provisions — 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labour  in  one  State  \mder 
the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence 
of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such 
service  or  labour,  but  shall  be  dehvered  up  on  claim  of  the 
party  to  whom  such  service  or  labour  may  be  due." 

It  is  scarcely  questioned  that  this  provision  was  intended 
by  those  who  made  it  for  the  reclaiming  of  what  we  call 
fugitive  slaves  ;   and  the  intention  of  the  lawgiver  is  the  law. 

All  members  of  Congress  swear  their  support  to  the  whole 
Constitution — to  this  provision  as  well  as  any  other.  To  the 
proposition,  then,  that  slaves  whose  cases  come  within  the 
terms  of  this  clause  "  shall  be  delivered  up,"  their  oaths 
are  unanimous.  Now  if  they  could  make  this  effort  in  good 
temper,  could  they  not,  with  nearly  equal  unanimity,  frame 
and  pass  a  law  by  means  of  which  to  keep  good  that 
unanimous  oath  ? 

There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  whether  this  clause 
should  be  enforced  by  National  or  by  State  authority  ;  but 
surely  that  difference  is  not  a  very  material  one.  If  the 
slave  is  to  be  surrendered,  it  can  be  of  but  little  consequence 
to  him  or  to  others  by  which  authority  it  is  done  ;  and  should 


38  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

any  one,  in  any  case,  be  content  that  this  oath  shall  go  unkept 
on  a  merely  unsubstantial  controversy  as  to  how  it  shall  be 
kept  ? 

Again,  in  any  law  upon  this  subject,  ought  not  all  safe- 
guards of  Hberty  known  in  civilised  and  humane  jurisprudence 
to  be  introduced,  so  that  a  free  man  be  not,  in  any  case, 
surrendered  as  a  slave  ?  And  might  it  not  be  well  at  the  same 
time  to  provide  by  law  for  the  enforcement  of  that  clause 
in  the  Constitution  which  guarantees  that  "  the  citizens  of 
each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities 
of  the  several  States  "  ? 

I  take  the  official  oath  to-day  with  no  mental  reservations, 
and  with  no  purpose  to  construe  the  Constitution  or  laws  by 
any  hypercritical  rules  ;  and  while  I  do  not  choose  now  to 
specify  particular  Acts  of  Congress  as  proper  to  be  enforced, 
I  do  suggest  that  it  will  be  much  safer  for  all,  both  in  official 
and  private  stations,  to  conform  to  and  abide  by  all  those 
Acts  which  stand  unrepealed,  than  to  violate  any  of  them, 
trusting  to  find  impunity  in  having  them  held  to  be 
unconstitutional . 

It  is  seventy-two  years  since  the  first  inauguration  of  a 
President  under  our  National  Constitution.  During  that 
period,  fifteen  different  and  very  distinguished  citizens  have 
in  succession  administered  the  executive  branch  of  the  Govern- 
ment. They  have  conducted  it  through  many  perils,  and 
generally  with  great  success.  Yet,  with  all  this  scope  for 
precedent,  I  now  enter  upon  the  same  task,  for  the  brief 
constitutional  term  of  four  years,  under  great  and  peculiar 
difficulties. 

A  disruption  of  the  Federal  Union,  heretofore  only  menaced, 
is  now  formidably  attempted.  I  hold  that  in  the  contem- 
plation of  universal  law  and  of  the  Constitution  the 
Union  of  these  States  is  perpetual.  Perpetuity  is  implied, 
if  not  expressed,  in  the  fundamental  law  of  all  national  govern- 
ments. It  is  safe  to  assert  that  no  government  proper  ever 
had  a  provision  in  its  organic  law  for  its  own  termination. 
Continue  to  execute  all  the  express  provisions  of  our  National 
Constitution,  and  the  Union  will  endure  for  ever,  it  being 
impossible  to  destroy  it,  except  by  some  action  not  provided 
for  in  the  instrument  itself. 

Again,  if  the  United  States  be  not  a  government  proper, 


LINCOLN  39 

but  an  association  of  States  in  the  nature  of  a  contract 
merely,  can  it,  as  a  contract,  be  peaceably  unmade  by  less 
than  all  the  parties  who  made  it  ?  One  party  to  a  contract 
may  violate  it — break  it,  so  to  speak  :  but  does  it  not  require 
all  to  lawfully  rescind  it  ?  Descending  from  these  general 
principles,  we  find  the  proposition  that  in  legal  contemplation 
the  Union  is  perpetual  confirmed  by  the  history  of  the  Union 
itself. 

The  Union  is  much  older  than  the  Constitution.  It  was 
formed,  in  fact,  by  the  Articles  of  Association  in  1774.  It 
was  matured  and  continued  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
in  1776.  It  was  further  matured,  and  the  faith  of  all  the 
then  thirteen  States  expressly  plighted  and  engaged  that  it 
should  be  perpetual,  by  the  Articles  of  the  Confederation  in 
1778 ;  and  finally,  in  1787,  one  of  the  declared  objects  for 
ordaining  and  establishing  the  Constitution  was  to  form  a 
more  perfect  Union.  But  if  the  destruction  of  the  Union 
by  one  or  by  a  part  only  of  the  States  be  lawfully  possible, 
the  Union  is  less  than  before,  the  Constitution  having  lost  the 
vital  element  of  perpetuity. 

It  follows  from  these  views  that  no  State,  upon  its  own  mere 
motion,  can  lawfully  get  out  of  the  Union  ;  that  resolves 
and  ordinances  to  that  effect  are  legally  void  ;  and  that 
acts  of  violence  within  any  State  or  States  against  the  authority 
of  the  United  States,  are  insurrectionary  or  revolutionary, 
according  to  circumstances. 

I  therefore  consider  that,  in  view  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  laws,  the  Union  is  unbroken,  and,  to  the  extent  of  my 
abiHty,  I  shall  take  care,  as  the  Constitution  itself  expressly 
enjoins  upon  me,  that  the  laws  of  the  Union  shall  be  faith- 
fully executed  in  all  the  States.  Doing  this,  which  I  deem 
to  be  only  a  simple  duty  on  my  part,  I  shall  perfectly,  so 
far  as  is  practicable,  fulfil  it  unless  my  rightful  masters,  the 
American  people,  shall  withhold  the  requisition,  or  in  some 
authoritative  manner  direct  the  contrary. 

I  trust  this  will  not  be  regarded  as  a  menace,  but  only  as 
the  declared  purpose  of  the  Union  that  it  will  constitutionally 
defend  and  maintain  itself. 

In  doing  this  there  need  be  no  bloodshed  or  violence,  and 
there  shall  be  none  unless  it  is  forced  upon  the  National 
Authority. 


40  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

The  power  confided  to  me  will  be  used  to  hold,  occupy, 
and  possess  the  property  and  places  belonging  to  the  Govern- 
ment, and  collect  the  duties  and  imposts  ;  but  beyond  what 
may  be  necessary  for  these  objects  there  will  be  no  invasion, 
no  using  of  force  against  or  among  the  people  anywhere. 

Where  hostility  to  the  United  States  shall  be  so  great  and 
so  universal  as  to  prevent  competent  resident  citizens  from 
holding  Federal  offices,  there  will  be  no  attempt  to  force 
obnoxious  strangers  among  the  people  that  object.  While 
the  strict  legal  right  may  exist  of  the  Government  to  enforce 
the  exercise  of  these  offices,  the  attempt  to  do  so  would  be 
so  irritating,  and  so  nearly  impracticable  withal,  that  I  deem 
it  best  to  forego,  for  the  time,  the  uses  of  such  ofiices. 

The  mails,  unless  repelled,  will  continue  to  be  furnished 
in  all  parts  of  the  Union. 

So  far  as  possible,  the  people  everywhere  shall  have  that 
sense  of  perfect  security  which  is  most  favourable  to  calm 
thought  and  reflection. 

The  course  here  indicated  will  be  followed,  unless  current 
events  and  experience  shall  show  a  modification  or  change 
to  be  proper  ;  and  in  every  case  and  exigency  my  best  dis- 
cretion will  be  exercised  according  to  the  circumstances 
already  existing,  and  with  a  view  and  hope  of  a  peaceful 
solution  of  the  national  troubles,  and  the  restoration  of 
fraternal  sympathies  and  affections. 

That  there  are  persons,  in  one  section  or  another,  who 
seek  to  destroy  the  Union  at  all  events,  and  are  glad  of  any 
pretext  to  do  it,  I  will  neither  affirm  nor  deny.  But  if  there 
be  such,  I  need  address  no  word  to  them. 

To  those,  however,  who  really  love  the  Union,  may  I  not 
speak,  before  entering  on  so  grave  a  matter  as  the  destruction 
of  our  national  fabric,  with  aU  its  benefits,  its  memories, 
and  its  hopes  ?  Would  it  not  be  weU  to  ascertain  why  we 
do  it  ?  Will  you  hazard  so  desperate  a  step,  while  any  portion 
of  the  ills  you  fly  from  have  no  real  existence  ?  WiU  you, 
while  the  certain  ills  you  fly  to  are  greater  than  all  the  real 
ones  you  fly  from  ?  Will  you  risk  the  commission  of  so 
great  a  mistake  ?  All  profess  to  be  content  in  the  Union  if 
all  constitutional  rights  can  be  maintained.  Is  it  true,  then, 
that  any  right,  plainly  written  in  the  Constitution,  has  been 
denied  ?     I    think    not.     Happily    the    human    mind    is    so 


LINCOLN  41 

constituted  that  no  party  can  reach  to  the  audacity  of  doing 
this. 

Think,  if  you  can,  of  a  single  instance  in  which  a  plainly 
written  provision  of  the  Constitution  has  ever  been  denied. 
If,  by  the  mere  force  of  numbers,  a  majority  should  deprive 
a  minority  of  any  clearly  written  constitutional  right,  it 
might,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  justify  revolution  ;  it  cer- 
tainly would  if  such  a  right  were  a  vital  one.  But  such  is 
not  our  case. 

All  the  vital  rights  of  minorities  and  of  individuals  are  so 
plainly  assured  to  them  by  affirmations  and  negations,  guaran- 
tees and  prohibitions  in  the  Constitution,  that  controversies 
never  arise  concerning  them.  But  no  organic  law  can  ever 
be  framed  with  a  provision  specifically  apphcable  to  every 
question  which  may  occur  in  practical  administration.  No 
foresight  can  anticipate,  nor  any  document  of  reasonable 
length  contain,  express  provision  for  all  possible  questions. 
Shall  fugitives  from  labour  be  surrendered  by  National  or  by 
State  authorities  ?  The  Constitution  does  not  expressly  say. 
May  Congress  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories  ?  The 
Constitution  does  not  expressly  say.  Must  Congress  protect 
slavery  in  the  Territories  ?  The  Constitution  does  not 
expressly  say.  From  questions  of  this  class  spring  all  our 
constitutional  controversies,  and  we  divide  upon  them  into 
majorities  and  minorities. 

If  the  minority  will  not  acquiesce,  the  majority  must,  or 
the  Government  must  cease.  There  is  no  alternative  for 
continuing  the  Government  but  acquiescence  on  the  one  side 
or  the  other.  If  a  minority  in  such  a  case  will  secede  rather 
than  acquiesce,  they  make  a  precedent,  which,  in  turn,  will 
ruin  and  divide  them,  for  a  minority  of  their  own  will  secede 
from  them  whenever  a  majority  refuses  to  be  controlled  by 
such  a  minority.  For  instance,  why  may  not  any  portion  of 
a  new  Confederacy,  a  year  or  two  hence,  arbitrarily  secede 
again,  precisely  as  portions  of  the  present  Union  now  claim 
to  secede  from  it  ?  AU  who  cherish  disunion  sentiments 
are  now  being  educated  to  the  exact  temper  of  doing  this. 
Is  there  such  a  perfect  identity  of  interests  among  the  States 
to  compose  a  new  Union  as  to  produce  harmony  only  and 
to  prevent  renewed  secession  ?  Plainly,  the  central  idea  of 
secession  is  the  essence  of  anarchy. 


42  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

A  majority  held  in  restraint  by  constitutional  check  and 
Limitation,  and  always  changing  easily  with  deliberate  changes 
of  popular  opinions  and  sentiments,  is  the  only  true  sovereign 
of  a  free  people.  Whoever  rejects  it,  does,  of  necessity,  fly 
to  anarchy  or  to  despotism.  Unanimity  is  impossible  ;  the 
rule  of  a  majority,  as  a  permanent  arrangement,  is  wholly 
inadmissible.  So  that,  rejecting  the  majority  principle, 
anarchy  or  despotism,  in  some  form,  is  all  that  is  left. 

I  do  not  forget  the  position  assumed  by  some  that  consti- 
tutional questions  are  to  be  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court, 
nor  do  I  deny  that  such  decisions  must  be  binding  in  any 
case  upon  the  parties  to  a  suit,  as  to  the  object  of  that  suit, 
while  they  are  also  entitled  to  a  very  high  respect  and  con- 
sideration in  all  parallel  cases  by  all  other  departments  of 
the  Government ;  and  while  it  is  obviously  possible  that 
such  decision  may  be  erroneous  in  any  given  case,  stiU  the 
evil  effect  following  it,  being  limited  to  that  particular  case, 
with  the  chance  that  it  may  be  overruled  and  never  become 
a  precedent  for  other  cases,  can  better  be  borne  than  could 
the  evils  of  a  different  practice. 

At  the  same  time  the  candid  citizen  must  confess  that  if 
the  policy  of  the  Government  upon  the  vital  question  affecting 
the  whole  people  is  to  be  irrevocably  fixed  by  the  decisions 
of  the  Supreme  Court  the  instant  they  are  made,  as  in  ordinary 
litigation  between  parties  in  personal  actions,  the  people  wiU 
have  ceased  to  be  their  own  masters,  unless  having  to  that 
extent  practically  resigned  their  Government  into  the  hands 
of  that  eminent  tribunal. 

Nor  is  there  in  this  view  any  assault  upon  the  Court  or 
the  Judges.  It  is  a  duty  from  which  they  may  not  shrink, 
to  decide  cases  properly  brought  before  them  ;  and  it  is  no 
fault  of  theirs  if  others  seek  to  turn  their  decisions  to  pohtical 
purposes.  One  section  of  our  country  believes  slavery  is 
right  and  ought  to  be  extended,  while  the  other  section  believes 
it  is  wrong  and  ought  not  to  be  extended  ;  and  this  is  the 
only  substantial  dispute  ;  and  the  fugitive  slave  clause  of 
the  Constitution,  and  the  law  for  the  suppression  of  the  foreign 
slave  trade,  are  each  as  weU  enforced,  perhaps,  as  any  law 
can  ever  be  in  a  community  where  the  moral  sense  of  the 
people  imperfectly  supports  the  law  itself.  The  great  body 
of  the  people  abide  by  the  dry  legal  obhgation  in  both  cases, 


LINCOLN  43 

and  a  few  break  over  in  each.  This,  I  think,  cannot  be  per- 
fectly cured,  and  it  would  be  worse  in  both  cases  after  the 
separation  of  the  sections  than  before.  The  foreign  slave- 
trade,  now  imperfectly  suppressed,  would  be  ultimately 
revived,  without  restriction,  in  one  section  ;  while  fugitive 
slaves,  now  only  partially  surrendered,  would  not  be 
surrendered  at  all  by  the  other. 

Physically  speaking,  we  cannot  separate  ;  we  cannot  remove 
our  respective  sections  from  each  other,  nor  build  an  impassable 
wall  between  them.  A  husband  and  wife  may  be  divorced, 
and  go  out  of  the  presence  and  beyond  the  reach  of  each  other, 
but  the  different  parts  of  our  country  cannot  do  this.  They 
can  but  remain  face  to  face  ;  and  intercourse,  either  amicable 
or  hostile,  must  continue  between  them.  Is  it  possible, 
then,  to  make  that  intercourse  more  advantageous  or  more 
satisfactory  after  separation  than  before  ?  Can  ahens  make 
treaties  easier  than  friends  can  make  laws  ?  Can  treaties 
be  more  faithfully  enforced  between  aliens  than  laws  among 
friends  ?  Suppose  you  go  to  war,  you  cannot  fight  always  ; 
and  when,  after  much  loss  on  both  sides,  and  no  gain  on 
either,  you  cease  fighting,  the  identical  question  as  to  terms 
of  intercourse  are  again  upon  you. 

This  country,  with  its  institutions,  belongs  to  the  people 
who  inhabit  it.  Whenever  they  shall  grow  weary  of  the 
existing  Government,  they  can  exercise  their  constitutional 
right  of  amending,  or  their  revolutionary  right  to  dismember 
or  overthrow  it.  I  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  many 
worthy  and  patriotic  citizens  are  desirous  of  having  the  National 
Constitution  amended.  While  I  make  no  recommendation 
of  amendment,  I  fully  recognise  the  full  authority  of  the 
people  over  the  whole  subject,  to  be  exercised  in  either  of 
the  modes  prescribed  in  the  instrument  itself,  and  I  should, 
under  existing  circumstances,  favour  rather  than  oppose  a 
fair  opportunity  being  afforded  the  people  to  act  upon  it. 

I  will  venture  to  add,  that  to  me  the  Convention  mode  seems 
preferable,  in  that  it  allows  amendments  to  originate  with 
the  people  themselves,  instead  of  only  permitting  them  to 
take  or  reject  propositions  originated  by  others  not  especially 
chosen  for  the  purpose,  and  which  might  not  be  precisely 
such  as  they  would  wish  either  to  accept  or  refuse.  I  under- 
stand that  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution  (which 


44  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

amendment,  however,  I  have  not  seen)  has  passed  Congress, 
to  the  effect  that  the  Federal  Government  shall  never  interfere 
with  the  domestic  institutions  of  States,  including  that  of 
persons  held  to  service.  To  avoid  misconstruction  of  what 
I  have  said,  I  depart  from  my  purpose  not  to  speak  of  par- 
ticular amendments,  so  far  as  to  say  that,  holding  such  a  provi- 
sion to  be  now  imphed  constitutional  law,  I  have  no  objection 
to  its  being  made  express  and  irrevocable. 

The  Chief  Magistrate  derives  all  his  authority  from  the 
people,  and  they  have  conferred  none  upon  him  to  fix  the 
terms  for  the  separation  of  the  States.  The  people  themselves, 
alone,  can  do  this  if  they  choose,  but  the  Executive,  as  such, 
has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  His  duty  is  to  administer  the 
present  Government  as  it  came  to  his  hands,  and  to  transmit 
it  unimpaired  by  him  to  his  successor.  Why  should  there 
not  be  a  patient  confidence  in  the  ultimate  justice  of  the 
people  ?  Is  there  any  better  or  equal  hope  in  the  world  ? 
In  our  present  differences  is  either  party  without  faith  of 
being  in  the  right  ?  If  the  Almighty  Ruler  of  Nations,  with 
His  eternal  truth  and  justice,  be  on  your  side  of  the  North, 
or  on  yours  of  the  South,  that  truth  and  that  justice  wiU 
surely  prevail  by  the  judgment  of  His  great  tribunal,  the 
American  people.  By  the  frame  of  the  Government  under 
which  we  live,  this  same  people  have  wisely  given  their  public 
servants  but  little  power  for  mischief,  and  have  with 
equal  wisdom  provided  for  the  return  of  that  httle  to  their 
own  hands  at  very  short  intervals.  While  the  people  retain 
their  virtue  and  vigilance,  no  Administration,  by  any  extreme 
wickedness  or  folly,  can  very  seriously  injure  the  Government 
in  the  short  space  of  four  years. 

My  countrymen,  one  and  aU,  think  calmly  and  well  upon 
this  whole  subject.  Nothing  valuable  can  be  lost  by  taking 
time. 

If  there  be  an  object  to  hurry  any  of  you,  in  hot  haste,  to 
a  step  which  you  would  never  take  deliberately,  that  object 
will  be  frustrated  by  taking  time  ;  but  no  good  object  can 
be  frustrated  by  it. 

Such  of  you  as  are  now  dissatisfied  still  have  the  old  Con- 
stitution unimpaired,  and,  on  the  sensitive  point,  the  laws 
of  your  own  framing  under  it ;  while  the  new  Administration 
will  have  no  immediate  power,  if  it  would,  to  change  either. 


LINCOLN  45 

If  it  were  admitted  that  you  who  are  dissatisfied  hold  the 
right  side  in  the  dispute,  there  is  still  no  single  reason  for 
precipitate  action.  Intelligence,  patriotism,  Christianity,  and 
a  firm  reliance  on  Him  who  has  never  yet  forsaken  this  favoured 
land,  are  stiU  competent  to  adjust,  in  the  best  way,  all  our 
present  difficulties. 

In  your  hands,  my  dissatisfied  fellow-countrymen,  and  not 
in  mine,  is  the  momentous  issue  of  civil  war.  The  Government 
will  not  assail  you. 

You  can  have  no  conflict  without  being  yourselves  aggres- 
sors. You  have  no  oath  registered  in  Heaven  to  destroy  the 
Government;  while  I  shall  have  the  most  solemn  one  to 
"  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  it." 

I  am  loath  to  close.  We  are  not  enemies,  but  friends. 
We  must  not  be  enemies.  Though  passion  may  have  strained, 
it  must  not  break,  our  bonds  of  affection. 

The  mystic  cords  of  memory,  stretching  from  every  battle- 
field and  patriot  grave  to  every  living  heart  and  hearthstone 
all  over  this  broad  land,  will  yet  swell  the  chorus  of  the  Union, 
when  again  touched,  as  surely  they  will  be,  by  the  better 
angels  of  our  nature. 


LORD  DERBY 

The  speech  which  Lord  Derby  delivered,  as  Lord  Stanley,  on 
the  second  reading  of  the  Corn  Law  Bill  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  is,  perhaps,  the  ablest  he  ever  made.  The  subject 
interested  him  profoundly,  and  he  had  elaborated  his  case 
with  unusual  care.  As  a  rule,  he  was  apt  to  speak  at  random, 
making  and  answering  points  in  debate,  but  not  going  very 
deep  into  the  question  with  which  he  had  to  deal.  On  this 
occasion,  however,  he  had  done  his  best  to  grapple  with  the 
facts,  except  the  Irish  famine,  whose  existence  he  boldly 
denied,  and  he  really  contrived  to  marshal  as  formidable  an 
array  of  objections  against  the  policy  of  free  trade  in  corn  as 
the  Protectionist  arsenal  could  furnish.  They  were  set  forth 
with  the  eloquence  which  seldom  failed  him,  and  with  a  clear- 
ness in  argument  to  which  he  did  not  often  attain.  If  their 
historic  value  has  been  a  good  deal  diminished  by  the  course  of 
events,  that  does  not  disentitle  the  speech  to  a  place  in  the 
records  of  British  oratory  as  eminently  characteristic  of  the 
orator  himself.  For  though  the  orderly  sequence  and  method- 
ical arrangement  of  the  facts  and  the  reasoning  are  not  always 
to  be  found  in  Lord  Derby's  speeches,  there  is  quite  enough 
here  of  the  slashing  rhetoric  which  distinguished  him  to  mark 
this  oration  with  the  seal  of  its  author.  The  purity  of  his 
English,  and  the  energy  of  his  style,  are  present  in  full  force 
throughout  the  speech.  It  is  therefore  an  excellent  specimen 
of  the  form  and  manner  which  made  Lord  Derby  known  as 
"  The  Rupert  of  Debate."  Lord  Stanley,  it  will  be  remembered, 
had  resigned  office  rather  than  consent  to  the  repeal  of  the 
Corn  Laws.  He  had  thus  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the 
Protectionist  party,  equally  opposed  to  the  Government  of 
Sir  Robert  Peel  and  to  the  Whigs  under  Lord  John  Russell. 
But  his  protest  against  the  Bill  for  repealing  the  Corn  Laws 

46 


DERBY  47 

is  a  serious  and  deliberate  attempt  to  justify  resistance  on 
social  and  economic  grounds,  mingled  with  a  great  deal  of 
pungent  invective  and  racy  attack.  There  is  much  in  it 
which  recalls  the  memory  of  a  reputation  once  conspicuous, 
now  half  forgotten,  for  resource  and  brilliancy  in  debate  such 
as  few  contemporaries  could  rival,  and  none  could  surpass. 
Lord  Derby's  strength  did  not  consist  in  disposing  of  the 
arguments  on  the  other  side,  but  of  so  arranging  his  own  as  to 
make  it  appear  that  there  was  no  other  side  at  all.  His  speeches 
were  extraordinarily  successful  at  the  time,  and  were  effective 
for  their  immediate  purpose  of  convincing  Lord  Derby's 
audience  that  he  had  the  best  of  the  encounter.  The  present 
example,  however,  has  also  the  more  serious  merits  of  logical 
cogency  and  argumentative  power.  It  would  be  easy  to  find 
cases  in  which  Lord  Derby  showed  to  advantage  as  the  ready 
and  brilliant  coiner  of  epigrams  and  wielder  of  retorts.  But  it 
seemed  desirable  to  bring  out,  as  this  speech  does,  some  of  his 
more  important  faculties,  and  to  give  a  measure  of  the  extent 
to  which  he  could  employ  the  materials  for  an  effective  defence. 

Second  Reading  of  the  Corn  Importation  Bill 

House  of  Lords,   May  25th,    1846 

I  CAN  assure  your  lordships  that  it  is  with  the  most  unfeigned 
distrust  of  my  own  powers,  but  at  the  same  time  with  the 
most  unhesitating  conviction  of  the  truth  and  strength  of  the 
case  which  I  have  to  support,  that  I  venture  to  submit  myself 
to  your  lordships'  indulgence,  while  I  enter  into  a  defence  of 
that  system  of  law  which  has  been  designated  by  a  noble  earl 
on  the  other  side  of  the  house  as  absurd,  and  which  has  been 
most  vehemently,  but  I  can  hardly  say  vigorously,  assailed 
by  those  who  have  hitherto  boldly  and  most  strenuously 
defended  it,  and  who  were  indeed  among  the  principal  framers 
of  the  existing  Act.  I  feel,  my  lords,  how  much  need  I  have 
of  your  indulgence,  because  I  find  myself  unhappily,  on  this 
occasion,  opposed,  impar  congressus,  to  all  those  who  have 
been  hitherto  the  leaders  of  both  the  great  parties  into  which 


48  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

this  House  and  the  other  House  of  Parhament  have  been  divided. 
But,  however  much  and  however  painfully  I  may  feel  the 
inequaUty  of  the  contest  in  point  of  ability,  I  cannot  admit 
that  the  weight  of  authority  is  in  favour  of  those  who  propose 
the  abolition  of  the  corn  laws.  My  lords,  I  will  not  appeal — 
it  would  be  invidious  to  do  so — to  the  authority  of  the  present, 
against  the  former,  opinions  of  noble  lords  on  either  side  of 
the  House.  I  will  not  cite  the  opinions  they  may  have  formed, 
or  the  expressions  they  may  have  made  use  of  ;  but,  my  lords, 
I  will  venture  to  appeal  from  the  authority  of  the  statesmen 
of  the  present  day  to  aU  the  great  names  among  those  who 
have  been  the  most  liberal  commercial  Ministers  of  England 
in  times  not  long  gone  past.  I  will  appeal  to  the  authority 
of  Lord  Chatham,  to  the  authority  of  Mr.  Pitt,  to  the  authority 
of  Mr.  Huskisson  ;  and,  my  lords,  while  I  mention  their  names, 
I  will  refer  to  those  of  others  whose  eloquence  still  rings  in  our 
ears — and  would  to  God  their  wisdom  and  prudence  were 
still  directing  our  counsels — trusting  I  shall  be  forgiven  by 
three  of  my  noble  friends  who  now  occupy  seats  in  this  house, 
if  I  cite,  in  opposition  to  their  opinions,  the  authority  of  those 
who  first  cast  imperishable  lustre  on  the  names  of  Liverpool, 
of  Canning,  and  of  Grey.  But  I  can  appeal  not  only  to  states- 
men of  almost  the  present  day — I  can  appeal  against  the 
statesmen  of  the  present  year  to  the  authority  of  all  those 
who  have  swayed  the  destinies  of  this  country  ever  since  it 
took  a  prominent  place  among  the  nations  of  the  world. 

The  noble  earl  (Ripon)  says  this  question  was  not  raised 
by  former  Governments  on  the  principle  of  protection  ;  I 
say  that  if  you  search  the  records  of  our  history  from  the 
earliest  times,  you  will  find  in  the  most  distinct  form,  from  the 
preambles  of  successive  statutes  in  successive  ages,  that  the 
principle  which  guided  the  Ministers  of  this  country  was  the 
principle  of  encouraging  the  domestic  industry  and  protecting  the 
agriculture  of  this  country.  As  early  as  the  time  of  Edward  IV 
I  recollect  a  memorable  preamble,  one  which  might  almost  be 
apphed  to  a  statute  of  the  present  day.  It  recites,  if  I  remem- 
ber the  words — "  That  whereas  the  labourers  and  occupiers 
in  husbandry  " — not  the  great  owners  of  land,  observe,  not 
the  great  proprietors — ^but  "  the  labourers  and  occupiers  in 
husbandry  be  grievously  endamaged  by  the  bringing  in  from 
foreign  countries  of  corn  into  this  realm  when  the  price  of  corn 


DERBY  49 

within  this  realm  is  low/'  and  the  statute  with  that  recital 
goes  on  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  corn,  when  the  price 
here  was  below,  I  think,  6s.  8d.  per  quarter.     The  same  prin- 
ciple has  guided  the  Legislature  of  this  country  from  that 
day  to  the  present,  varied  according  to  the  circumstances  of 
the  country,  varied  according  to  the  exigencies  of  the  times, 
varied  according  to  the  state  of  husbandry,  and  the  state  of 
our  relations  with  foreign  powers.     But  through  all,  without 
an  exception,  there  has  been  maintained  this  principle,  that 
in  order  to  secure  the  independence  of  this  country  of  foreign 
supplies  for  the  food  of  its  own  people,  it  was  the  policy  of 
this  great  country  to  give  encouragement  and  protection  to 
the  cultivation  of  its  own  soil.     But  I  will  not  be  satisfied 
with  appealing  to  home  authorities.     There  is  not  one  nation 
in  the  world  of  any  eminence  that  has  ventured  up  to  this 
hour  upon  the  bold  and  rash  experiment  upon  which  your 
lordships  are  invited  to  enter,  of  leaving  the  provision  of  the 
food  of  its  people  unrestrained  by  legislation,  unprotected  by 
fiscal  regulation,  and  subject  to  mere  chance,  or  worse  than 
that — to  chance  controllable  and  controlled  by  the  caprice, 
the  enmity,  or  the  inability  to  supply  of  foreign  countries. 
I  will  go  through  the  principal  nations  of  the  earth.     France 
and  Holland  have  both  not  only  a  system  of  protection,  but 
both  have   a    sliding  scale,  and    France   has   a    sliding   scale 
infinitely  more  complicated  and  stringent  than  our  own.    Bel- 
gium, Denmark,  Sweden,  Norway,  the  Germanic  Confedera- 
tion,  Prussia,  Portugal,   Spain,  the  Roman  States,  Austria, 
Greece,  Turkey,  Egypt,  and  the  United  States  of  America. 
Have  I  gone  through  all  the  principal  nations  of  the  world  ? 
Not  one  of  all  these  countries  has  ventured  to  leave  its  agri- 
culture unprotected,  or  to  allow  the  provision  of  the  food  of 
its  people  to  be  dependent  on  foreigners.     And  when  I  see 
all  this,  not  only  can  I  not  admit  that  the  weight  of  authority 
is  with  the  opponents  of  the  measure,  but  I  venture  to  doubt 
the  truth  of  that  which  has  been  put  forward  as  an  indisputable 
axiom — that  the  prinid  facie  inference  is  in  favour  of  unre- 
_  stricted  free   trade.     On  the  contrary,  I  think  the  weight  of 
authority,  the  authority  of  the  past  and  the  present,  of  this 
and  of  all  other  countries,  nations  with  every  variety  of  soil 
and  climate,  with  every  variety  of  density  and  sparseness  of 
population,  under  all  varieties  of  civil  institutions,  from  the 

4— (3I7I) 


50  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

most  absolute  monarchy  to  the  most  unrestricted  repub- 
licanism, the  combined  authority  of  all  times  and  countries  is 
in  favour  of  the  system  of  protection.  I  dispute  that  which 
has  been  held  to  be  an  indisputable  axiom — I  contend  that  the 
inference,  the  pHmd  facie  inference,  is,  that  all  former  states- 
men in  this  country,  and  all  other  countries  at  the  present  day, 
have  not  been  alike  wholly  destitute  of  political  wisdom  and 
political  sagacity.  I  cannot  believe  that  not  a  single  beam 
of  enlightenment  dispelled  the  universal  darkness  till  that 
which  flashed  simultaneously  and  with  such  marvellous  power 
of  conversion  upon  the  statesmen  of  the  present  age  in  the 
month  of  November  last. 

I  hope  I  need  not  assure  your  lordships,  and  I  am  quite 
confident  I  need    not    assure    the    noble    and    gallant    duke 
near  me  (Wellington),  that  however  deeply  I  may   deplore 
the  course  he  has  pursued  as  a   Minister  of  the  Crown,  no 
words  shall  fall  from   me,  in  the  course  of   the  observations 
I  shall  have  to  offer,  in  the  slightest  degree  inconsistent  with 
the  deep  personal  respect  I  entertain  both  for  his  public  and 
private  character,  or  tending  to  cast  the  shadow  of  a  suspicion 
— which  does  not  exist  or  find  a  place  in  my  mind — upon  the 
entire  purity  of  the  motives  by  which  he  has  been  actuated. 
Even  if  my  noble  friend's  briUiant  career  and  the  pre-eminent 
position  he  occupies  in  this  age  and  country,  did  not  place 
him — I  will  not  say  beyond  the  reach  of  criticism — but  above 
the  apprehension  of  censure,  the  uniform  single-mindedness 
of  his  character,  his  utter  forgetfulness  on  all  occasions  of 
self,  and  his  abhorrence  of  all  that  is  low,  mean,  and  selfish, 
would  be  a  sufficient  guarantee  to  your  lordships  and  to  the 
world,  that  whatever  be  the  circumstances  which  have  produced 
it,  his  decision  has  been  formed  upon  a  sincere,  but,  I  respect- 
fully think,  a  mistaken  sense  of  what  is  best  for  the  public 
interest.     Nor,  my  lords,  will  I  presume  to  doubt  the  sincerity 
of  the  conviction  of  my  right  honourable  friend  at  the  head 
of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  that  this  measure  was  called 
for  by  a  great  exigency.     A  man  of  far  less  sagacity  and 
experience  than  my  right  honourable  friend  could  not  have 
failed  to   foresee    that    the   inevitable   consequence   of  this 
measure  must  be  the  dislocation  and  disruption  of  all  those 
party  ties  without  which,  in  my  humble  judgment,  the  affairs 
of  this  great  country  can  never  be  steadily  or  safely  conducted  ; 


DERBY  51 

he  must  have  foreseen  the  shock  it  would  give  to  pubhc  con- 
fidence in  pubhc  men,  to  the  confidence  of  constituents  in  their 
representatives,  to  the  confidence  of  the  country  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  and,  forgive  me  for  saying  so,  in  your  lordships' 
house  also,  if  you  should  unhappily  imitate  the  too  facile  con- 
version of  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature.     He  must  have 
known  the  embarrassment,  the  painful  conflict  and  struggle 
between  personal  attachment  and  public  principle,  to  which 
it  would  expose  his  warmest  and  most  devoted  adherents  ; 
he  must  have  felt  the  injury  he  was  doing  to  his  own  pubhc 
reputation,  and  the  diminution  he  was  causing  to  his  own 
means  of  future  usefulness  ;    I  believe  my  right  honourable 
friend  foresaw  all  these  circumstances,  and  therefore  I  cannot 
but  think  that  he  conscientiously  believed  the  emergency  of 
the  case  required  this  course  to  be  pursued.     But  I  think 
my  right  honourable  friend  fatally  and  unhappily  mistook 
the  character  of  that  emergency,  that  he  mistook  the  real 
judgment  of  the  country.     I  think  he  committed  the  error 
the  most  fatal  a  statesman  can  commit — I   think  he  mistook 
the  brawling  torrent  of  agitation  for  the  still,  deep  current 
of  public  opinion.     And  it  will  not  be  the  least  unhappy 
consequence  of  this  unhappy  measure  that  this  country  and  the 
world  will  believe — truly  or  falsely,  justly  or  unjustly,   I  will 
not  say — that   a   triumph  has  been  gained  by  an  organised 
and  interested  association  over  the  Minister  of  the  Crown,  and 
that  a  still  more  fatal  triumph  has  been  gained  by  the  Minister 
of  the  Crown,  acting  under  the  influence  of  that  association, 
over    his    political    supporters    and    the    independence    of 
Parliament. 

With  these  observations  I  dismiss  all  that  is  personal  with 
regard  to  this  question.  I  will  not  be  tempted  to  enter  into 
personal  motives  by  that  general  paneg3n:ic  on  inconsistency 
which  has  been  pronounced  by  the  noble  marquis  (London- 
derry). But  I  must,  in  passing,  express  my  regret  that  the 
noble  marquis  should  have  thought  it  becoming  in  him  to 
cast  a  taunt  upon  those  able,  zealous,  and  conscientious 
men,  who,  abandoned  by  those  in  whom  they  formerly  placed 
their  confidence,  have  been  put  forward  in  an  unwonted 
struggle,  and  in  that  struggle  have  exliibited  ability,  talent 
and  courage  which  only  reflect  the  greater  credit  upon  them 
because  for  a  long  period  of  time,  as  long  as  they  could  confide 


52  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

in  those  who  formerly  led  them,  they  had  modestly  kept 
those  talents  concealed  from  public  view.  I  say  I  will  not 
enter  upon  personal  considerations.  I  will  not  expose  myself 
to  the  sort  of  attack  intimated  by  the  noble  marquis  ;  I  will 
not  quote  a  single  page  of  Hansard  ;  I  will  not  go  back  to  one 
previous  opinion  or  one  previous  speech  ;  I  do  not  desire  to 
appeal  to  your  lordships'  passions,  but  to  your  reason  ;  I  do 
not  desire  to  aggravate  the  feeUngs  of  mortification,  perhaps 
I  might  use  a  stronger  word,  with  which  you  must  regard  those 
by  whom  you  have  been,  to  say  the  least,  misled  ;  I  wish  to 
omit  all  personal  considerations  ;  if,  indeed,  I  were  to  enter 
into  the  question  of  consistency,  I  think  I  should  have  to  direct 
my  observations  with  tolerable  impartiality  to  both  sides  of 
the  house.  I  cannot  concur  with  the  noble  duke  (Cleveland), 
who  thought  that  those  on  the  other  side  of  the  house  are 
entitled  to  say  that  on  this  question  they  are  pursuing  a 
consistent  course.  I  take  leave,  with  great  respect,  to  remind 
noble  lords  opposite  that,  up  to  1841,  there  was  little  or  no 
difference  of  opinion  among  them  as  to  the  necessity  of  main- 
taining the  then  existing  corn  laws.  The  noble  marquis  has, 
I  think,  estimated  at  six  the  number  of  the  minority  of  your 
lordships  on  that  subject.  And  though  since  that  period 
there  has  been  a  difference  between  the  two  sides  of  the  house, 
it  has  not  related  to  the  question  whether  agriculture  is  entitled 
to  protection  or  not,  but  simply  as  to  its  extent  and  amount, 
and  the  most  efficient  and  politic  mode  of  applying  and  ad- 
ministering that  protection.  And  such  I  believe  was  the  case 
down  to  that  memorable  month  of  November,  1845 — down 
to  the  day  when  that  verbosa  et  grandis  epistola  venit,  which 
has  caused  many  of  your  lordships  to  exclaim,  "  Oh,  that 
mine  enemy  would  write  a  letter  "  ;  from  that  period,  and 
from  that  period  alone,  we  can  date  the  claim  of  noble  lords 
opposite — if,  indeed,  there  be  a  claim — to  be  considered  the 
opponents  of  protection.  It  may  be  that  some  of  your  lord- 
ships who  are  about  to  vote  for  the  second  reading,  desire  to 
record  your  opinion  against  the  principle  of  the  sliding-scale, 
to  give  effect  to  your  own  conscientious,  and  I  believe  I  may 
say,  unaltered  opinion  in  favour  of  a  fixed  duty.  In  that  case 
I  have  nothing  to  say  against  your  perfect  consistency  ;  but 
if  you  are  about  to  join  a  Government  for  the  purpose  of 
abolishing  all  protection  to  agriculture  in  whatever  shape,  you 


DERBY  53 

must  not  flatter  yourselves  that  you  are  altogether  free  from 
the  imputation  of  that  inconsistency  with  which  you  are  so 
ready  to  taunt  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

And  now,  I  turn  from  the  personal  part  of  the  subject  and 
from  the  discussion  of  the  question  by  whom  the  measure  was 
proposed  and  supported,  to  the  much  more  important  matter, 
the  arguments  by  which  it  is  maintained.  But  here,  I  must 
say,  we  are  met  at  the  outset  by  a  difficulty  of  rather 
a  singular  kind.  When,  in  the  other  House  of  Parliament, 
we  have  asked  the  Ministers  of  the  Crown  a  question — not,  I 
think,  an  unfair  or  an  unreasonable  one — What  do  you  antici- 
pate will  be  the  result  of  this  measure  ?  the  simple  answer 
given  was  that  they  must  decline  to  prophecy  :  their  prophecies 
failed  in  1842,  and  they  would  not  risk  their  reputation  as 
prophets  hereafter.  If  we  ask  what  the  effect  of  the  measure 
will  be,  we  are  frankly  told  that  they  cannot  say.  Now, 
where  is  it  that  you  are  about  to  try  this  experiment,  of  which 
the  Minister  who  brings  it  forward  cannot  tell  what  will  be 
the  possible  or  probable  results  ?  The  old  proverb  says, 
fiat  experimentum  in  cor  fore  vili ;  try  your  experiments  on 
some  small  scale,  in  some  insignificant  corner  of  the  globe, 
in  some  inartificial  state  of  society  ;  try  it  where  a  mistake 
would  not  be  irrevocable  ;  where  an  error  in  judgment  would 
not  lead  to  such  formidable  consequences.  But  you  are  going 
to  try  this  experiment  in  the  wealthiest  and  mightiest  empire 
of  the  world  ;  you  are  trying  it  in  this  England  of  ours,  the 
highest  and  mightiest  among  the  nations  of  the  world — that 
which  is  in  the  most  artificial  state  of  society — that  in  which 
the  slightest  derangement  of  the  social  scale,  the  slightest 
disturbance  of  the  relations  between  the  different  classes 
of  the  community  may  produce  the  most  extensive,  serious, 
and  irremediable  mischief.  And  it  is  in  this  country,  and 
supported  by  such  arguments  as  you  have  heard  from  my 
noble  friend  to-night,  that  you  are  invited  to  try  this  great 
experiment,  the  issue  of  which  the  Minister  of  the  Crown  tells 
you  he  cannot  foresee.  It  may  be  very  well  for  an  irrespon- 
sible body,  like  the  Anti-Corn-Law  League,  engaged  in  an  active 
and  interested  pursuit  of  their  own  objects — I  do  not  mean  to 
say  not  beheving  that  their  own  personal  interests  are  not 
inconsistent  with  the  public  interest — it  may  be  very  natural, 
if  not  very  legitimate,  for  their  agents,  and  those  whom  they 


54  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

employ,  to  hold  different  language  to  different  classes  of  the 
community  ;  to  speak  to  the  manufacturing  classes  of  cheap 
bread,  of  bread  at  half  the  present  price,  and  wages  double 
the  present  amount  ;  to  talk  of  a  grinding  aristocracy,  of  the 
plunder  of  the  poor,  of  robbery  by  the  monopohsts,  of  the 
heartless  landlords,  and  all  those  clap-trap  phrases  by  which 
an  ignorant  multitude  have  been  deceived  and  deluded  ; 
and  then  to  turn  round  to  the  agriculturists  of  this  country, 
and  to  tell  them  of  the  universal  prosperity  that  will  result 
from  this  measure,  and  to  say,  "  Do  not  for  a  moment  appre- 
hend a  fall  in  the  price  of  your  produce  ;  the  price  will  rise  ; 
far  from  losing  you  will  only  be  sharers  in  the  universal  gain." 
Somehow  or  other  bread  is  to  be  infinitely  cheaper  to  the 
consumers — somehow  or  other  you  are  to  get  a  much  better 
price  for  the  corn  you  grow.  But,  my  lords,  if  this  conduct 
be  natural  or  legitimate  in  the  members  of  the  Anti-Com-Law 
League,  it  is  neither  natural  nor  legitimate  in  the  first  Minister 
of  the  Crown,  wielding  the  authority  of  the  Crown,  speaking 
in  the  name  of  the  Crown,  exercising  the  influence  of  his  high 
station,  and  his  high  character,  and  his  high  talents,  to  carry 
measures  of  deep  and  vital  importance,  of  hazardous  and 
doubtful  policy.  Your  lordships  and  the  other  House  of 
Parhament  have  a  right  to  be  told  by  the  Minister,  under 
such  circumstances,  what  is  the  object  at  which  he  aims, 
and  you  have  a  right  to  canvass  fully  and  distinctly,  first 
whether  the  object  be  in  itself  desirable  ;  and,  next,  whether 
the  means  which  he  proposes  for  effecting  it  are  likely  to  attain 
that  object  if  it  be  desirable.  You  have  a  right  to  know  from 
the  Minister  what  he  calculates  upon,  as  being  the  probable 
effect  of  this  great  measure. 

My  lords,  in  the  silence  of  the  Government  upon  this  point, 
we  turn  to  the  arguments  which  they  have  made  use  of  ; 
and  although  certainly  one  of  them  has  been  in  a  considerable 
degree  abandoned  by  my  noble  friend  this  evening,  yet  in  the 
course  of  the  discussions  that  I  have  heard,  this  measure  has  been 
rested  mainly  upon  two  arguments,  namely,  the  apprehended 
famine  in  Ireland,  and  the  operation  of  the  tariff.  Supposing 
always  the  famine  to  exist,  it  must  be  by  bringing  a  large  amount 
of  corn  into  consumption  at  so  low  a  price  as  to  place  it  within 
the  reach  of  the  poorest  and  the  most  distressed  of  that  starving 
population  ;  but,  if  I  am  not  mistaken  in  the  boast  which  Her 


DERBY  55 

Majesty's  Government  make  of  the  successful  operation  of  the 
tariff,  it  is  this — that  while  it  is  materially  extending  commerce, 
it  has  not  diminished,  on  the  contrary,  it  has  rather  tended  to 
raise  the  price  of  the  articles  which  have  been  subjected  to  its 
operation.  Let  me,  however,  examine  these  two  questions — 
the  famine,  and  the  operation  of  the  tariff ;  and  if,  in  entering 
upon  this  topic,  I  am  compelled  to  trouble  your  lordships  at 
much  greater  length  than  I  desire,  and  to  enter  upon  some 
details  which  may  be  wearisome,  but  which  are  certainly  not 
unimportant  to  the  decision  of  this  great  question,  I  must 
pray  your  lordships'  indulgence,  on  the  consideration  that  in 
entering  upon  these  dry  details  I  cheerfully  and  willingly 
sacrifice  all  advantage  which  I  might  derive  from  dwelling 
upon  more  exciting,  because  more  personal,  topics. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  famine,  I  must  beg  to  call  your 
lordships'  attention  so  far  back  as  to  the  period  of  October 
and  November  last.  The  noble  lord  has  told  us  that  the  famine 
was  not  the  inducing  cause  of  this  alteration  in  the  corn  law 
being  proposed.  With  all  respect  for  my  noble  friend,  I  will 
venture  to  say — and  I  am  confident  I  shall  not  be  contradicted 
by  any  single  friend  of  Her  Majesty's  Government — that  if 
it  had  not  been  for  the  apprehension  of  scarcity  in  Ireland, 
and  the  supposed  failure  of  the  crops,  your  lordships  would 
never  have  been  asked — in  the  course  of  this  session,  at  all 
events — ^to  alter  or  repeal  the  corn  law.  When  the  Cabinet 
was  called  together  in  the  close  of  October  last,  it  was  for  the 
purpose  of  considering  the  state  of  Ireland.  Papers  were  laid 
before  us,  representing  the  failure  of  the  potato  crop,  the 
anxiety  that  was  felt,  the  reports  of  certain  learned  professors 
— which  reports,  by  the  by,  tended  mainly  to  increase  the 
anxiety,  and,  with  all  respect  for  whom,  if  their  advice  had 
been  followed  I  believe  the  evil  would  have  been  aggravated. 
We  were  called  upon  to  consider  what  steps  should  be  taken 
for  the  rehef  of  Irish  distress  ;  and  it  was  for  the  rehef  of  Irish 
distress,  and  it  was  in  consequence  of  the  supposed  failure  of 
the  potato  crop,  that  we  were  invited  to  open  the  ports  by 
Order  in  Council,  and  thereby  to  suspend  the  operation  of  the 
corn  law.  My  lords,  I  was  of  opinion  then,  and  I  continue  of 
opinion  now,  that  at  the  close  of  October,  in  the  first  place, 
the  real  state  of  the  case  with  regard  to  the  famine,  or  the 
apprehension    of   scarcity   in    Ireland,    was   wholly   unknown 


56  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

to  the  Government  or  to  anyone  else.  Not  above  a  third 
of  the  potatoes  had  at  that  time  been  dug  up.  Further,  I 
beheved  then,  and  I  believe  now,  that  there  never  was  a  season 
in  the  history  of  Ireland  when,  so  far  from  there  being  either 
famine  or  scarcity,  there  was  so  large  a  supply  in  the  country 
of  all  descriptions  of  food  for  the  consumption  of  the  people. 
We  were  also  told  that  foreign  countries  were  taking  steps  to 
prevent  the  export  of  their  supphes,  that  crops  upon  the 
Continent  were  short,  and  that  if  our  supply  failed  we  should 
have  no  means  of  renewing  it  from  abroad.  I  certainly 
thought  that  was  an  additional  reason  against  taking  such  a 
step  as  opening  the  ports,  because  the  effect  of  this  step,  under 
such  circumstances,  would  be  to  stimulate  consumption  at 
a  time  when,  upon  the  hypothesis,  it  was  desirable  rather 
to  discourage  it,  and  that  to  stimulate  consumption  would 
be  likely  ultimately  to  aggravate  the  evil  of  distress,  if  indeed 
distress  and  scarcity  existed.  But  I  entreat  your  lordships 
to  bear  in  mind  the  wide  and  manifest  distinction  between 
scarcity  or  famine,  and  great  local  and  individual  distress. 

My  lords,  I  speak  of  the  famine  as  a  vision — an  utterly 
baseless  vision — which  haunted  the  imagination  and  disturbed 
the  judgment  of  the  Government.  I  speak  in  very  different 
terms,  and  with  very  different  feelings,  of  that  amount  of 
destitution  and  distress  into  which  a  large  body  of  the  small 
ottars  in  Ireland  have  been  thrown  by  the  partial  or  total 
failure  of  their  potato  crop  ;  but  I  conceive  that  this  is  a  kind 
of  distress,  this  is  a  species  of  destitution,  upon  which  your 
repeal  of  the  corn  law,  whatever  effect  it  produces  upon  the 
price  of  wheat,  will  produce  no  more  effect,  and  can  produce 
no  more,  than  if  you  were  to  pass  a  law  which  should  reduce 
the  price  of  pineapples.  The  evil  to  these  people  is  not  that 
corn  is  dear,  or  potatoes  dear  ;  corn  never  was  dear  ;  the  price 
of  corn,  in  spite  of  all  that  took  place,  never  rose  to  any  very 
high  pitch.  The  state  of  distress  and  suffering  to  which  these 
people  are  exposed,  arises  from  this,  that  they  are  not,  as  the 
labourer  in  England  is,  dependent  for  their  subsistence  upon 
labour  and  steady  wages,  the  produce  of  their  gardens  serving 
to  eke  out  their  wages  with  some  little  additional  comfort ; 
but  that  they  have  invested  their  labour,  invested  their  all, 
in  the  cultivation  of  some  small  plot  of  ground,  for  which  they 
pay  a  large  rent,  and  if  the  produce  of  that  plot  fails,  they  have 


DERBY  57 

no  labour  to  look  to,  their  stock  of  provisions  is  gone,  and 
having  no  means  of  employment,  they  have  no  prospect  of 
obtaining  money  wherewith  to  purchase  food  to  replace  the 
potato  crop  which  has  failed.  That  is  the  cause  of  the  distress 
of  the  small  cottars  of  Ireland. 

But  now  I  pray  you  to  mark  another  class,  and  it  is  not  an 
unimportant  one,  a  class  which,  including  the  families  of  those 
who  compose  it,  comprises  probably  5,000,000  or  6,000,000 
of  the  people  of  Ireland,  namely,  the  small  farmers  and  occupiers 
in  Ireland.  In  what  state  are  they  placed  ?  Their  system  of 
cultivation  is  oats  and  potatoes  ;  their  potato  crop  had  failed, 
or  a  great  part  of  it  was  diseased  ;  it  was  unfit  for  human  food. 
It  was  not  unfit  for  the  food  of  animals,  and  many  of  them 
very  wisely  increased  the  number  of  their  pigs,  fattened  them 
upon  the  diseased  potatoes,  and  realised  a  very  fair  profit. 
But  what  was  the  compensation  to  a  farmer  of  this  class  ? 
Why,  the  potato  crop  had  failed,  but  his  oats  were  super- 
abundant, bringing  a  very  fair  price  ;  and  he  had  in  his  super- 
abundant oats  the  means  of  sustaining  himself,  and,  in  their 
price,  of  recovering  in  some  degree  the  loss  of  his  potatoes. 
And  by  way  of  reUeving  that  man  you  propose,  when  he  has 
lost  his  potatoes,  to  inflict  a  further  injury  upon  him  by  reducing 
the  price  of  his  oats.  Therefore,  as  apphcable  to  the  famine 
in  Ireland — if  famine  there  were — I  took  the  liberty  of  recording 
my  opinion  against  the  proposed  opening  of  the  ports.  At 
the  same  time,  so  strongly  and  so  forcibly  did  I  feel  the  import- 
ance of  unanimity  in  the  Cabinet — so  strongly  was  I  con- 
vinced of  the  injury  done  by  the  breaking  up  of  any  Govern- 
ment, that  although  entertaining  serious  doubts  whether  a 
suspension  of  the  corn  laws  and  the  opening  of  the  ports  would 
be  of  avail,  or  might  not  even  be  injurious,  I  intimated  my 
entire  readiness  to  yield  my  own  opinion  and  consent  to  a 
suspension  of  the  corn  law,  provided  a  suspension  was  pro- 
posed. But  when  I  was  told,  not  exactly  in  the  language 
of  the  noble  marquis  just  now,  who  talked  about  a  skilful 
general  and  an  able  diplomatist,  making  use  of  the  best  plea 
he  could  find,  but  still  told  that  that  temporary  exigency,  that 
passing  emergency  of  apprehended  scarcity  in  Ireland,  was  not 
to  lead  to  a  remedy  commensurate  in  duration  with  the 
expected  evil,  but  to  be  made  the  groundwork  of  suspending, 
for  the  purpose  of  not  re-enacting,  the  corn  law,  I  felt  that  I 


58  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

could  not  take  that  course  consistently  with  my  own  feeling 
as  an  honourable  man  ;  and  that,  with  such  ulterior  views, 
to  propose  to  Parliament  to  sanction  the  opening  of  the  ports 
would  be  to  lead  those  who  were  disposed  to  support  us,  into 
a  snare  and  a  delusion. 

Your  lordships  are  aware  that  the  discussions  at  the  close 
of  October  terminated  by  an  adjournment  of  the  question  ; 
several  of  my  colleagues  being  of  opinion  with  me  that  at  all 
events  we  had  not  sufficient  information  to  act  upon.  When 
the  Cabinet  met  again  in  November,  I  was  one  of  those  who 
cordially  concurred  in  those  measures  for  the  rehef  of  Irish 
distress  adopted  by  the  Government ;  the  chief  of  those  measures 
consisting  in  the  appointment  of  a  Commission  composed  of 
the  heads  of  those  departments  of  the  Government  who  would 
have  the  best  opportunity  of  furnishing  the  population  in  case 
of  distress  with  employment  as  the  means  of  subsistence,  of 
communicating  with  the  Lords-Lieutenant  of  counties,  establish- 
ing local  committees  in  every  district,  compelling  the  landlords 
of  Ireland  to  know  the  real  state  of  their  several  neighbours 
and  the  degree  of  co-operation  which  would  be  expected  of 
them,  rendering  assistance  through  the  medium  of  the  com- 
missariat, even  entering  upon  the  very  deUcate  task  of  regulat- 
ing the  markets  by  the  transmission  of  food  from  one  part  of 
the  country  to  the  other  to  meet  the  consequences  of  local 
speculation,  giving  employment  where  local  funds  were 
insufficient,  and  laying  in  a  certain  portion  of  provisions  in 
order  to  feed  the  destitute  in  the  last  extremity,  when  employ- 
ment could  not  be  found.  I  considered  these  measures 
applicable  strictly  to  the  case  of  Ireland.  I  considered  that 
the  abrogation  of  the  corn  law,  unjustifiable  in  itself,  could 
not  be  warranted  upon  that  ground,  and  far  from  doing  good 
would  assuredly  injure  the  people  of  Ireland.  The  question 
when  the  Cabinet  met  again  was  certainly  different,  but  I 
confess  it  was  with  some  surprise  and  no  little  disappointment 
that  when  the  question  was  put  to  the  Cabinet,  not  of  an 
immediate  issue  of  an  Order  in  Council,  but  of  an  early  summon- 
ing of  ParHament  for  the  purpose  of  proposing  a  virtual  abro- 
gation of  the  corn  law,  I  found  myself  alone  in  my  opposition. 
I  felt  deeply  and  painfully  the  prospect  of  separation  from 
colleagues  I  esteemed.  I  felt  most  painfully  the  awful  weight 
of  responsibility  which  I  found  was  about  to  devolve  singly 


DERBY  59 

upon  myself.  I  am  not  ashamed  to  say  that  I  asked  for 
forty-eight  hours  to  enable  me  to  decide  upon  the  course  I 
should  pursue.  My  lords,  it  was  no  sacrifice  to  me  to  abandon 
office ;  on  the  contrary,  I  had  most  rigidly  to  examine  my  own 
mind  whether  I  were  unduly  influenced  to  an  obstinate  perse- 
verance by  my  anxious  desire  to  escape  from  the  responsibilities 
and  labours  of  public  life  ;  I  tried  to  school  myself  into  the 
belief  that,  under  certain  circumstances,  the  interests  of  the 
country  might  require  even  a  sacrifice  of  personal  and  public 
character.  My  lords,  I  could  not  bring  myself  to  so  humiliating 
a  conclusion,  and  most  reluctantly,  but  without  difl&culty  or 
doubt,  supported  as  I  was  by  one  of  my  colleagues,  whom  I 
am  not  at  liberty  to  name  but  whom  if  I  could  name,  I  am 
quite  sure  his  position  and  his  character  would  satisfy  all  your 
lordships,  that  in  subsequently  rejoining  the  Government 
he  could  be  actuated  by  none  but  the  most  honourable  motives, 
I  was  compelled  to  tender  the  resignation  of  my  office.  Upon 
that  the  Government  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  broken  up.  Your 
lordships  are  all  aware  of  the  circumstances  which  followed. 
I  did  not  at  that  time  trouble  your  lordships  with  explanations 
which  might  possibly  lead  to  controversy ;  and  I  owe  an  apology 
to  your  lordships  for  digressing  now,  even  for  a  moment,  from 
this  important  question  to  a  matter  personal  to  myself. 

My  lords,  we  are  called  upon  to  abandon  the  com  law  of 
1842.  And  why  ?  In  what  respect  has  it  deceived  your 
expectations  ?  How  has  it  falsified  your  prophecies  ?  Your 
prophecies  have  been  reahsed  to  a  wonderful  degree  of 
accuracy.  In  what  respect  has  it  failed  ?  The  object  of  this, 
and  of  every  corn  law,  I  take  to  be  to  place  this  country  in 
a  state  of  virtual  independence  of  foreign  countries  for  its 
supply  of  food.  I  know  that  object  may  be  scouted  by  some 
of  the  very  enlightened  poHticians  of  the  present  day  ;  but 
it  was  not  thought  unworthy  the  consideration  of  great  men 
not  long  passed  away  from  among  us  ;  and  if  your  lordships 
will  forgive  me  for  referring  to  it,  I  will  quote  a  passage  from 
a  letter  of  Mr.  Huskissson,  which  puts  the  whole  question  in  a 
few  words  in  the  clearest  Hght  in  which  it  can  be  seen.  He 
was  writing  at  the  close  of  the  war,  and  his  sentiments  are 
worthy  of  the  deepest  attention.  We  have  forgotten  the 
circumstances  of  that  time — some  of  us,  indeed,  are  too  young 
to  remember  them,  but,  generally,  we  seem  not  to  remember 


eO  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

in  dealing  with  this  question  the  evils  to  which,  prior  to  1815, 
this  country  had  been  subjected  from  its  dependence  for  a 
supply  of  corn  on  foreign  countries.  On  that  occasion  Mr. 
Huskisson  said — 

The  present  war,  it  is  true,  is  now  at  an  end  ;  but  peace  is  at  all 
times  too  precarious  not  to  induce  us  to  guard  against  the  repetition 
of  similar  calamities  whenever  hostilities  may  be  renewed.  But  even 
in  peace  the  habitual  dependence  on  foreign  supply  is  dangerous.  We 
place  the  subsistence  of  our  own  population  not  only  at  the  mercy 
of  foreign  powers,  but  also  on  their  being  able  to  spare  as  much  corn 
as  we  may  want  to  buy.  Suppose,  as  it  frequently  happens,  the  harvest 
in  the  same  year  to  be  a  short  one,  not  only  in  this  country  but  in  foreign 
countries  from  which  we  are  fed,  what  follows  ?  The  habitually  ex- 
porting country — France,  for  instance — stops  the  export  of  its  corn, 
and  feeds  its  people  without  any  great  pressure.  The  habitually 
importing  country,  England,  which,  even  in  a  good  season,  has  hitherto 
depended  on  the  aid  of  foreign  corn,  deprived  of  that  aid  in  a  year  of 
scarcity,  is  driven  to  distress  bordering  upon  famine.  There  is, 
therefore,  no  effectual  security,  either  in  peace  or  war,  against  the 
frequent  return  of  scarcity  approaching  to  starvation,  such  as  of  late 
years  we  have  so  frequently  experienced,  but  in  our  maintaining 
ourselves  habitually  independent  of  foreign  supply.  Let  the  bread  we 
eat  be  the  produce  of  corn  grown  among  ourselves,  and  for  one,  I  care 
not  how  cheap  it  is.  The  cheaper  the  better.  It  is  cheap  now,  and  I 
rejoice  at  it,  because  it  is  altogether  owing  to  a  sufficiency  of  corn  of 
our  own  growth.  But  in  order  to  secure  a  continuance  of  that  cheapness 
and  that  sufficiency,  we  must  ensure  to  our  own  growers  that  protection 
against  foreign  import  which  has  produced  these  blessings,  and  by 
which  alone  they  can  be  permanently  maintained.  The  history  of  the 
country  for  the  last  170  years  clearly  proves,  on  the  one  hand,  that 
cheapness  produced  by  foreign  import  is  the  sure  forerunner  of  scarcity, 
and  on  the  other,  that  a  steady  home  supply  is  the  only  safe  foundation 
of  steady  and  moderate  prices. 

Now,  my  lords,  you  aim  then,  by  a  corn  law,  at  an  independ- 
ence of  foreign  supply,  accompanied  and  produced  by  such  an 
encouragement  to  your  home-grower  as  shall  guarantee  him 
up  to  a  certain  point,  against  foreign  competition,  and  shall, 
beyond  that  point,  protect  the  consumer  against  exorbitant 
and  extravagantly  high  prices,  protecting  all  parties  against 
that  which  is  most  injurious  to  all — rapid  and  sudden  fluctua- 
tions. Now,  I  say,  that  beyond  any  law  which  has  ever  been 
in  force  in  this  or  any  other  country,  this  law  of  1842  has 
accomplished  these,  its  great  and  main  objects.  First,  with 
regard  to  the  provision  of  a  home  supply,  we  have  no  statistical 
tables  in  this  country  (and  it  is  a  great  pity  that  we  have  not) 
by  which  we  could  ascertain,  year  by  year,  the  amount  of  the 


DERBY  61 

production  of  the  country  ;  but  if  it  can  be  proved  that  in  a 
state  of  society  in  which  the  population  is  increasing  as  rapidly 
as  has  been  stated  by  the  noble  earl,  and  in  which,  let  me  add, 
the  proportion  of  wheat  consumers  is  increasing  more  rapidly 
still,  the  population  of  this  great  country  has  not  alone  had  a 
sufficiency  to  meet  the  increased  demand,  but  has  had  that 
sufficiency  at  a  reduced  price,  and  with  a  diminished  and  not 
an  increased  supply  from  abroad,  then,  my  lords,  I  maintain 
that  the  inference  is  that  protection  has  fully  effected  its  object, 
and  that  by  its  means  we  have  been  enabled  to  keep  pace  with 
the  increasing  demand  of  our  increasing  population.  I  will 
show  you,  my  lords,  that  this  has  been  the  case.  I  must  take 
a  series  of  years,  because  the  quantities  imported  must  neces- 
sarily vary  largely  from  year  to  year,  and  this  whatever 
may  be  your  legislation  ;  for  these  fluctuations  are  dependent 
on  the  seasons,  over  which  you  have  no  control.  You  may 
provide  by  legislation  that  on  an  average  a  larger  or  a  smaller 
portion  of  your  supply  shall  be  drawn  from  abroad,  but 
whether  you  have  a  sliding  scale  or  a  fixed  duty,  or  no  duty 
at  all,  the  annual  amount  of  import  must  greatly  vary.  In 
a  bad  year  you  will  import  more  ;  in  a  good  year  less,  whatever 
be  the  state  of  your  law.  But  looking  at  the  tables  which  have 
been  laid  before  your  lordships,  I  find  that,  speaking  of  wheat 
alone  (and  I  shall  confine  myself  throughout  to  wheat,  and  not 
weary  your  lordships  with  unnecessary  details  with  regard 
to  other  grain,  the  principle  being  the  same  in  all)  in  the  course 
of  these  last  twenty  years  we  have  imported  21,432,000  quarters 
of  wheat.  The  yearly  average  for  the  last  twenty  years  amounts 
to  1,071,000  quarters  ;  for  the  last  three  years  to  741,000 
quarters  ;  and  in  the  course  of  the  last  year  it  was  308,000 
quarters.  Has  this  result,  I  would  ask,  been  produced  by  any 
increased  price  of  wheat  at  home  ? 

A  great  number  of  fallacies  have  been  made  use  of  and 
statements  attributed  to  us,  who  defend  this  corn  law,  which 
we  never  uttered.  We  are  constantly  told  that  the  intention 
of  this  corn  law  was  to  guarantee  to  the  farmer  the  price  of 
55s.  a  quarter.  The  intention  of  the  com  law  was  no  such 
thing.  My  right  hon.  friend,  in  introducing  the  measure, 
stated  that  if,  by  legislation,  he  could  fix  the  average  price  of 
corn,  he  would  fix  it  from  54s.  to  58s.  The  avowed  object  of 
the  com  law,  therefore,  was  this,  that  when  the  price  is  above 


62  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

58s.  the  consumer  should  be  protected  against  any  other 
competition  than  that  which  he  can  engage  with  upon  equal 
terms — namely,  competition  with  those  who  are  exposed  to 
the  same  vicissitudes  of  the  same  climate,  and  who  have  the 
same  advantages  and  are  subject  to  the  same  burdens  and 
restrictions  with  himself.  What  has  been  the  result  of  the 
corn  law  as  far  as  the  consumer  is  concerned  ?  I  find  that 
the  average  price  of  wheat  for  the  last  twenty  years  has  been 
57s.  4d.  a  quarter,  whilst  the  average  price  for  the  last  three 
years,  since  the  corn  law  passed,  has  only  been  50s.  9d.,  and 
the  price  last  year,  which  we  have  been  told  was  a  period  of 
great  scarcity,  was  50s.  lOd.  My  right  honourable  friend  stated 
his  wish  to  keep  the  price  between  54s.  and  58s.,  and  since  the 
passing  of  the  Bill  the  annual  average  price  has  not  risen  above 
50s.  9d.,  or  50s.  lOd.  But  a  return  laid  before  the  House  of 
Commons  gives  a  more  accurate  test  of  the  operations  of  the 
sliding  scale,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  it  acts  to  check  the 
tendency  to  a  rise  of  price  whenever  that  tendency  is  exhibited. 
The  paper  I  allude  to  is  a  return  of  the  weekly  price  of 
corn  in  every  week  from  March,  1844,  to  March,  1846  ;  and 
with  respect  to  these  104  weeks,  the  result  was  that  the  price 
has  been  between  54s.  and  58s.  in  no  less  than  forty-three 
of  those  weeks  ;  the  price  has  been  below  54s,  in  fifty-four 
other  weeks  ;  the  price  has  been  above  58s.  in  seven  weeks 
only,  and  the  price  has  never  risen  in  any  one  week  above  59s. 
So  far,  therefore,  as  concerns  the  consumer,  has  he  any  right 
to  say  that  the  corn  law  has  deceived  any  expectations  he 
had  a  right  to  form  of  it  ?  Now,  although  it  is  quite  true 
that  the  prices  of  corn  have  fallen  considerably  below  that 
which  was  anticipated  by  my  right  honourable  friend, 
if  we  look  to  the  total  amount  imported  since  the  great  influx 
of  2,500,000  quarters  immediately  after  the  passing  of  that 
measure,  we  shall  find  that  of  2,000,000  quarters  which  have 
come  in  since  that  time,  there  have  been  entered  under  55s. 
only  305,000  quarters  ;  between  55s.  and  59s.,  the  actual 
point  at  which  we  desired  to  limit  it  by  the  bill,  1,475,000 
quarters  ;  and  between  59s.  and  62s.  261,000  quarters.  I 
conceive,  therefore,  the  law  has  operated  in  the  manner  and 
nearly  to  the  extent  it  was  expected  to  operate.  Another  great 
and  important  point  respects  the  fluctuation  in  the  price  of 
corn.     Since  this  corn  law  passed,   the  fluctuation  of  price 


DERBY  63 

which  has  taken  place  between  1844  and  1846  is  only  from 
58s.  4d.  down  to  45s.  2d.     The  whole  difference  between  the 
highest  week  and  the  lowest  week  in  these  two  years  is  not  a 
difference  of  30  per  cent.     The  greatest  weekly  fluctuation 
in  the  price,  between  any  one  week  and  the  succeeding,  is 
Is.  6d.,  and  the  greatest  fluctuation  in  any  period  for  the  whole 
four  weeks  of  the  month  is  a  fluctuation  of  4s.  and  no  more. 
When  this  com  bill  was  introduced  in  1842,  I  recollect  it  being 
put  forward  as  a  matter  of  boast,  that  the  com  laws  as  they 
then  stood  had  produced  only  a  fluctuation  of  49  per  cent. 
in  any  one  year,  while  the  existing  corn  law  has  produced 
only  a  fluctuation  of  30  per  cent,  in  two  years.     But  let  us 
look  to  the  fluctuation  of  price  in   other  countries  from  the 
month   of   December,    1844,    to   December,    1845.      Observe 
that  in  two  years  the  total  amount  of  our  fluctuation  has  been 
30  per  cent.,  while  in  that  one  year  the  fluctuation  at  Dantzic 
was  56  per  cent.  ;  at  Hamburg,  86  ;  at  Rostock,  78  ;  at  Stettin, 
84 ;  at  Odessa,  50 ;  and  at  Alexandria,  54.   Perhaps  you  may  tell 
me  that  this  is  the  effect  of  our  own  sliding  scale,  and  of  our 
com  law  operating  upon  prices  abroad.  Then  I  will  refer  you 
to  America.  In  1842,  my  right  honourable  friend  the  Secretary 
for  the  Colonies  moved  for  a  return  of  the  maximum  fluctuation 
of  price  in  the  markets  of  America  from  1834  to  1840,  and, 
according  to  that  return,  the  greatest  fluctuation  in  any  one 
year,  was,  in  New  York,  70  per  cent.  ;  in  Philadelphia,  76  ; 
in  Portsmouth,  72 ;  and  in  New  Norfolk,  62.     The  account  of 
these  fluctuations  has  been  carried  down  to  the  present  time, 
and  between  the  years  1841  and  1846  whilst  our  fluctuation 
never  exceeded  30  per  cent,  between  1844  and  1845,  and  whilst 
in  the  market  of  Montreal,  which  ought,  if  the  argument  of 
my  opponents  is  just,  to  have  been  the  most  affected  by  our 
com  laws,  the  fluctuation  did  not  exceed  17  per  cent,  on  the 
price  of  last  year.     I  find  in  New  York  in  one  year  a  fluctua- 
tion of  51  per  cent.  ;  in  Philadelphia,  50,  in  Richmond,  76 ; 
and  in  Baltimore,  90.  As  far,  then,  as  the  experience  of  three 
years  has  gone,  no  law  in  this  or  any  other  country  has  pro- 
duced so  great  a  steadiness  of  price  with  cheapness  as  the 
law  of  1842,  which  your  lordships  are  now  called  on  to  abandon. 
But  if  your  lordships  wish  to  refer  to  a  period  of  the  greatest 
fluctuation  in  this  country,  refer  to  the  period  between  1792 
and  1805,  a  period  when  there  was  the  greatest  dependence 


64  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

on  the  foreigner.     Hear,  on  this  subject,  the  evidence  of  Mr. 
Malthus,  in  a  pamphlet  written  by  him  in  the  year  1814.     He 
says,   "  During  the  last  century,  the  period  of  our  greatest 
importation   and   dependence   on   foreign   com  was  between 
1792  and  1805,  and  certainly  in  no  four  years  of  the  whole 
100  was  the  fluctuation  so  great.     In   1792  the  price  was 
42s.  ;  in  1796  it  was  77s.  ;  in  1801,  it  was  118s.  ;  and  in  1803, 
56s.     So  that  between  1792  and  1801  the  price  was  almost 
tripled  ;  and  in  the  short  period  between  1798  and  1803  it  rose 
from  50s.  to  118s.,  and  fell  again  to  56s.,  and  that  in  that 
period  of  the  history  of  this  country  in  which  we  were  most 
dependent  on  foreign  supply."     If  it  were  necessary  to  prolong 
the  discussion  on  this  point,  I  would  ask  your  lordships  to 
look  to  the  fluctuations  of  price  in  other  articles.     You  are 
told  that  the  fluctuations  in  the  price  of  corn  are  attributable 
to  the  sliding  scale.     Look  to  the  fluctuations  in  the  price  of 
potatoes.     There  is  no  sliding  scale  as  respects  them  ;  but 
there  is  free  trade.     They  may  be  imported  from  anywhere, 
and  they  pay  no  duty.     Yet  I  know  that  the  price  of  potatoes 
varies  from  100  to  150  per  cent,  in  the  course  of  a  single  year. 
Then,  again,  look  at  the  price  of  upland  cotton.     No  sHding 
scale  affects  it,  and  the  demand  is  regular  and  steady.     Yet 
if  you  look  at  the  price  of  upland  cotton  in  Liverpool  in  1836, 
1837,  and  1838,  you  will  find  that  it  was  in  January,  1836, 
8id.  per  lb.  ;  in  March,  IHd.  ;  in  January,  1837,  lOJd.  ;  in 
May,  5|d.  ;  in  December,  8|d.  ;  and  in  April,  1838,  5d.     I  ask, 
is  there  any  fluctuation  in  corn  to  be  compared  with  this  ? 

Now  I  trust  I  shall  be  excused  for  adverting  to  another 
point  of  importance,  namely,  the  supply  which  our  com  laws 
procure  for  us  and  keep  on  hand  to  meet  possible  emergencies. 
I  will  recall  to  your  lordships'  recollection  what  was  the  state 
of  the  different  countries  of  Europe  at  the  commencement 
of  the  present  year.  There  existed  a  great  apprehension  of 
scarcity  among  all,  and  measures  were  taken  for  their  own 
protection  and  security,  and  that  I  may  not  be  supposed  to 
misrepresent  in  the  slightest  degree  the  facts  of  the  case,  I  will 
read  from  a  statement  made  by  my  right  honourable  friend  the 
First  Lord  of  the  Treasury.  After  stating  the  apprehensions 
of  scarcity  felt  by  various  foreign  powers,  my  right  honourable 
friend  goes  on — 

"  From  Belgium,  dated  the  24th  of  September,  we  heard  that 


DERBY  65 

the  Chambers  had  sanctioned  the  proposal  of  the  Government 
to  prohibit  export  and  permit  import.  Egypt,  on  the  22nd 
of  October,  prohibited  the  exportation  of  all  com  arriving  at 
Alexandria  after  that  day.  Turkey  prohibited  the  export  of 
all  grain  from  the  ports  of  Anatoha  and  her  Asiatic  provinces 
from  the  27th  of  August,  1845,  to  harvest-time  in  1846. 
Sweden  prohibited  the  export  of  potatoes  from  the  15th  of 
October  till  the  next  harvest.  There  was,  indeed,  at  this 
period  a  general  apprehension  of  a  scarcity  of  provisions, 
extending  from  Sweden  to  Egypt,  and  from  Riga  to  Turkey, 
and  measures  were  taken  to  stop  their  exportation,  and  for 
excluding  us  from  some  of  our  usual  sources  of  supply." 

This  shows  that  the  moment  a  pressure  takes  place  measures 
are  taken  by  these  countries  to  stop  the  exportation  of  food, 
and  deprive  us  of  the  opportunity  of  obtaining  it  from  them. 
We  were  also  told  to  stop  the  export  of  provisions,  to  take  off 
the  duty  on  import,  to  prohibit  the  use  of  grain  in  distilleries. 
We  took  none  of  those  steps.  We  trusted  to  the  operation, 
the  steady,  quiet,  certain  operation,  of  our  existing  com  law. 
I  beHeve  that  the  best  test  of  scarcity  is  to  be  foimd,  not  in 
the  report  of  learned  professors,  but  that  there  is  a  much 
better  barometer  as  to  that  point,  and  that  is  the  price  of  food 
in  the  market.  The  self-acting  operation  of  the  com  law  did 
not  come  into  effect,  and  because  it  did  not,  its  authors  said 
that  it  was  a  sUding-scale  that  would  not  shde.  Of  course  it 
would  not,  and  for  this  good  reason,  because  there  was  not 
a  deficiency  in  the  country  to  increase  the  price.  By  relying 
on  the  operation  of  the  com  laws  what  was  the  result  ? 
What  was  the  amount  of  com  in  bond  at  the  close  of  the  year 
1845  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  our  demand  ?  I  am  not  talking 
of  the  amount  in  bond  now,  which  has  most  unfortunately 
accumulated  in  consequence  of  the  introduction  of  this  measure ; 
and  which  may  now  come  in  with  a  ruinous  effect  on  the 
market.  I  am  speaking  of  the  amount  which  your  com  laws 
provided  in  bond  at  a  time  of  universal  scarcity.  The  average 
quantity  in  bond  in  December  for  the  last  twenty  years  has 
been  445,000  quarters ;  and  the  highest  amount  in  bond  in 
December  in  any  previous  year  was  899,000  quarters.  But 
in  December  last,  in  face  of  the  difficulties  in  Europe,  in  face 
of  the  established  prohibition  of  export,  we  had  in  bond  in 
waiting  for  an  exigency  that  did  not  come,  1,106,000  quarters. 

5— (2I7I) 


66  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Will  any  man,  then,  tell  me  that  the  com  law  has  failed 
in  the  essential  points  of  keeping  us,  in  the  main,  independent 
of  foreign  supply,  in  securing  cheapness  and  steadiness  of 
price,  and  in  providing  for  us  an  abundant  foreign  supply  in 
case  we  should  require  to  make  up  any  deficiency  in  this 
country  ?  Will  any  man  seriously  contend  that  this  great 
advantage  resulting  from  the  corn  law  has  been  purchased 
by  the  sacrifice  of  commercial  interests  ?  Is  there  any  man 
who  does  not  know  the  enormous  and  unparalleled  strides 
which  this  country  has  made  in  commercial  and  manufacturing 
industry,  I  do  not  say  on  account  of,  but  I  will  say  notwith- 
standing, the  operation  of  the  com  laws  ?  Since  1827  the 
exports  of  this  country  have  increased  from  £36,000,000  in 
value  to  £58,500,000,  and  in  the  course  of  those  years  the 
import  of  cotton  alone  has  increased  from  177,000,000  lbs.  to 
721,000,000  lbs.  In  the  course  of  the  period  since  1814,  while 
the  value  of  landed  property,  as  shown  by  the  property  tax 
paid  in  respect  of  Schedule  A,  has  increased  from  £39,300,000 
to  £45,750,000,  being  an  increase  of  about  16  per  cent.,  the 
increase  on  Schedule  D,  showing  the  profits  of  trade,  manu- 
factures, and  professions,  has  increased  from  £35,800,000  in 
1814,  to  £64,344,000  in  1842,  being  an  increase  of  no  less  than 
84  per  cent.,  against  16  per  cent,  increase  in  the  value  of  land. 
Have,  then,  these  corn  laws  been  inconsistent  with  manu- 
facturing prosperity  ?  and  why  are  we  now  invited  to  enter 
upon  this  great  experiment  ?  It  is  for  the  purpose,  I  suppose, 
of  still  further  expanding  the  manufacturing  activity  of 
the  country.  I  belong  to  a  manufacturing  county,  and 
no  man  is  less  incUned  than  myself  to  depreciate  the 
great  advantages  derived  from  the  manufactures  of  this 
country,  the  great  increase  they  have  caused  in  the  wealth  of 
the  nation,  and  in  many  cases  the  addition  they  have  given 
to  the  comfort  of  the  labouring  classes.  But  this  system  of 
manufacturing  activity  is  not  without  its  attendant  drawbacks 
and  dangers.  It  is  a  system  which  requires  to  be  steadily 
and  carefully  watched  rather  than  to  be  unduly  pampered 
and  fostered.  Manufacturing  industry  is  subject  to  constant, 
great,  and  rapid  fluctuations.  Its  powers  of  production  are 
always  overtaking  the  powers  of  consumption,  A  period  of 
prosperity  is  invariably  followed  by  the  glutting  of  every 
market   in    the  world,    and    by    a    corresponding   period   of 


DERBY  67 

adversity.  Do  nothing,  for  God's  sake,  to  check  the  prosperity 
of  manufactures,  but  do  not  be  led  by  unwise  legislation  to 
promote  and  pamper  an  unwholesome  increase,  which,  when 
the  bubble  bursts,  involves  all  in  serious  evils. 

But  if  it  is  certain  that  the  increase  and  extension  of  manu- 
factures are  desirable,  it  is  not  clear  to  my  mind  that  the  repeal 
of  the  com  laws  would  have  the  effect  of  increasing  manu- 
facturing industry.  If  there  be  no  great  reduction  in  the  price 
of  com  in  consequence  of  this  measure,  it  needs  no  demonstra- 
tion to  show  that  there  will  be  no  largely  increased  consumption 
of  com  ;  and  if  there  should  be  no  great  increase  in  the  con- 
sumption of  com,  the  consequence  is,  that  there  will  be  a 
transference  of  business,  to  the  same  and  no  greater  extent, 
from  customers  in  this  country  to  customers  abroad,  and 
that  would  be  all.  Are  we  to  beheve  the  argument  of  the 
successful  operation  of  the  tariff  ?  We  are  told  that  the  price 
of  wool  has  risen,  and  also  of  timber,  silk,  butchers'  meat, 
and  I  know  not  what  besides.  I  must  say,  however,  that  of 
all  the  bold  paradoxes  ever  palmed  on  the  credulity  of  mankind, 
and  passed,  upon  the  authority  of  great  names,  for  sovereign 
and  supreme  wisdom,  the  boldest  and  most  laughable  is  this — 
that  increased  competition  tends  to  raise  the  price  of  those 
articles  which  are  the  subject  of  it.  Reason  is  against  it ; 
and  more,  facts  are  against  it.  True,  the  reduction  of  a  half- 
penny per  pound  on  wool  last  year,  taking  place  at  a  thriving 
period  of  your  manufactures,  did  not  check  consumption  ;  the 
demand  for  the  article  went  on  increasing  more  than  the 
supply,  and  the  fall  was  not  felt.  But  what  happened  in  1825, 
when  Mr.  Huskisson  reduced  the  price  6d.  per  lb.  ?  My  noble 
friend  on  the  cross  benches  recollects  that  Mr.  Huskisson 
reduced  the  price  from  6d.  to  Id. ;  and  that,  while  from  1819 
to  1824  the  average  price  of  Southdown  wool  was  Is.  4d.,  it 
was  from  1825  to  1830  only  lOd.,  being  a  reduction  to  the  full 
amoimt  of  the  duty.  If  you  talk  of  silk — I  will  not  enter 
into  the  details  of  the  silk  trade — but  admitting  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  what  I  think  not  quite  clear,  that  the  silk  manu- 
facture is  in  a  better  state  than  it  would  have  been  under  a 
system  of  greater  protection,  this  fact  is  notorious,  that, 
simultaneously  with  the  removal  of  the  prohibition  from  the 
manufactured  article,  you  largely  reduced  the  duty  charged 
upon  the  raw  material ;    and  your  lordships  must  allow  me  to 


68  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

remind  you,  moreover,  that  after  the  prohibition  was  removed, 
the  silk  manufacture  of  this  country  was,  and  has  been  to  the 
present  moment,  protected  by  a  duty  averaging  no  less  than 
30  per  cent,  on  the  price  of  the  article.     I  need  not  ask  you 
about  timber.     It  is  quite  true  the  price  of  Baltic  timber 
has  not  fallen  to  the  full  extent  of  the  reduction  of  the  duty, 
though,  I  beheve,  the  Canadian  timber  has  ;  but  what  has  been 
the  effect  on  the  price  of  the  article  in  this  country  ?     I  hold 
in  my  hand  a  return  showing  the  money  price  for  50  cubic 
feet  of  timber  for  three  years  previous  to  the  tariff,  showing  a 
mean  price  of  103s.  9d.  ;  while  since  the  tariff  the  mean  price 
is  91s.  3d.,  and  last  year  only  86s.  8d.     I  ask  my  noble  friend 
at  the  head  of  the  Woods  and  Forests,  if  he  has  any  doubt  of 
this,  whether  the  Government  did  not  some  short  time  ago 
offer  for  sale  some  timber  and  bark  in  the  Forest  of  Dean,  and 
whether  he  was  not  obliged  to  withdraw  it  without  sale  ? 
[Viscount  Canning. — It  was  sold.]    Was  it  ?     Then  what 
was  it  sold  for  ?     I  will  not  enter  upon  the  question  as  to  the 
rise  in  price  of  butchers'  meat,  or  the  various  causes  which 
have  led  to  that  increase.      Your  lordships  are  well  aware  of 
the  deficiency  of  the  home  supply  and  of  the  causes  of    that 
deficiency  ;  a  deficiency  which  has  not  been  in   any  sensible 
degree  counterbalanced  by  the  comparatively  trifling  importa- 
tions from  abroad.     I  find  the  total  amount  of  sheep  imported 
has  been  7,113  ;  and  I  find  that  in  one  single  market,  in  Smith- 
field,  the  falling-off  was  from  27,370  in  the  week  ending  the 
14th  April,  1845,  to  16,240  on  the  13th  April,  1846.     Here, 
my  lords,  is  the  explanation,  and  a  very  sufficient  explana- 
tion, of  the  rise  in  butchers'  meat,  not  on  account  of,  but 
notwithstanding,  the  Hmited  operation  of  the  tariff. 

I  contend  that,  under  this  proposed  abrogation  of  the  law, 
there  will  be  a  large  reduction  in  the  price  of  com.  But  before 
I  leave  the  question  of  the  tariff,  I  may  be  permitted  to  refer 
for  a  moment  to  the  effect  the  tariff  has  had  upon  British  ship- 
ping. Great  stress  has  been  laid  on  this  point.  Prices  were  to 
fall,  but  the  tariff  was  to  have  the  effect  of  immensely  increasing 
our  commercial  activity  in  the  employment  of  British  shipping. 
A  great  deal  has  been  said  of  the  increase  in  the  amount  of  our 
shipping  employed  between  1842  and  1845.  But,  my  lords,  how 
does  this  case  stand  with  reference  to  the  tariff — to  which  I  was 
a  consenting  party,  because  I  thought  it  would  have  a  tendency 


DERBY  69 

to  settle  prices  when  there  was  a  tendency  to  extravagant 
prices  ;  and  because  I  thought  it  would  tend,  moreover,  to 
expose  the  home  grower  to  such  an  amount  of  competition 
(and  no  more)  as  he  could  fairly  and  safely  meet.  The  prin- 
ciple of  the  tariff  was  protection,  and  not  prohibition.  The 
principle  of  the  tariff  was  competition  ;  but  my  notion  of 
competition  was  this — that  you  must  have  the  competing 
parties  placed  upon  an  equality  to  start  from,  and  that  unless 
you  have  this  equality  of  circumstances  in  the  competing 
parties,  your  principle  of  free  trade  may  turn  out  to  be  the 
most  rank  and  entire  monopoly.  Now,  what  has  been  the 
increase  of  British  shipping  employed  under  the  new  tariff  ? 
The  tonnage  of  vessels  belonging  to  different  ports  of  the 
British  Empire  in  1842  was  3,619,000  tons  ;  in  1844,  it  was 
3,636,000  tons  ;  showing  in  two  years  an  increase  of  17,000 
tons.  Now,  since  1833,  there  has  been  a  progressive  annual 
increase  in  the  amount  of  your  shipping  tonnage  each  year, 
with  one  exception,  surpassing  the  year  preceding.  The 
total  amount  of  that  increase  has  been  985,000  tons,  and  the 
average  biennial  increase  197,000  tons.  But  the  increase  in 
the  two  years  since  the  adoption  of  the  tariff  has  been  17,000. 
Is  that  all  ?  Now  I  will  show  you  a  branch  of  the  shipping 
trade  of  this  country  in  which  there  has  been  a  large  increase, 
and  which  compensates  for  the  very  large  deficiency  which 
would  otherwise  have  been  presented  in  the  last  two  or  three 
years — a  branch,  certainly,  for  which  the  tariff  can  take  no 
credit,  and  which  depends,  and  has  depended,  upon  the  pros- 
perity of  agriculture  and  the  argicultural  improvements 
encouraged  by  the  system  of  protection.  I  refer  to  the  number 
of  ships  engaged  in  the  guano  trade  in  the  years  1843  and 
1845.  You  may  smile  and  think  this  is  an  inconsiderable 
branch  of  trade  ;  but  what  has  been  the  increase  in  the  tonnage 
and  number  of  ships  employed  in  it  ?  That  trade  commenced 
in  1841.  In  1843,  the  tonnage  of  British  ships  engaged  in 
the  guano  trade  was  4,056  tons,  and  it  afforded  employment 
to  202  seamen.  In  1845,  British  shipping  of  the  tonnage  of 
219,000  tons,  and  11,434  British  seamen,  were  employed  in 
the  trade.  There  was,  therefore,  an  increase  of  above  200,000 
tons  of  shipping  in  the  guano  trade  alone,  to  set  against  an 
increase  in  our  whole  commercial  marine  of  17,000  tons  since  the 
tariff  was  adopted.     Now,  I  contend  that,  under  the  proposed 


70  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

law,  there  will  be  a  considerable  fall  in  the  price  of  com, 
though  not  equal  to  the  reduction  of  the  duty.  I  do  not  think 
it  is  very  difficult  to  estimate  at  what  price  we  may  expect 
to  have  a  large  quantity  of  foreign  wheat  brought  into  this 
country  under  the  Bill  now  before  us.  I  do  not  found  my 
calculation  on  the  prices  at  Dantzic  or  Riga  or  elsewhere. 
We  are  now  called  upon  to  legislate  on  the  experience  of  the 
tariff.  I  find  that,  at  a  price  of  55s.,  we  had,  as  was  expected, 
a  very  large  importation  of  foreign  com.  Now,  at  55s.,  the 
duty  is  15s.  We  had  then  a  large  importation  of  com,  realising 
to  the  importer  something  below  40s.  a  quarter.  We  may, 
therefore,  fairly  anticipate  that  when  the  duty  is  taken  off, 
we  shall  have  a  large  importation  of  foreign  com  at  40s., 
inundating  our  markets,  and  making  40s.  a  quarter  pretty 
nearly  the  maximum  price  you  can  ever  expect  to  realise. 

I  fear,  my  lords,  I  am  troubling  you  at  too  great  length. 
I  am  ashamed  to  do  so  ;  but  this  is  a  great  question.  I  feel 
that  I  am  arguing  it  very  imperfectly  and  feebly,  but  I  trust 
your  lordships  will  bear  with  me  for  a  few  moments.  I  this 
morning  received  a  letter  from  a  gentleman,  who  describes 
himself  to  be  the  head  of  the  oldest  firm  engaged  in  the  com 
trade  in  Liverpool.     He  writes  as  follows — 

I  [beg  to  inform  your  lordship  that  I  hold  in  bond  two  cargoes  of 
fair  red  wheat,  which  were  imported  early  last  year  from  Ibraila,  on 
the  Danube,  at  a  cost  of  14s.  per  quarter  free  on  board  ship,  the  freight 
to  Liverpool  being  9s.  6d.  per  quarter,  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  give  it 
as  my  deliberate  opinion  that  if  the  measure  now  before  your  lordship's 
House  be  suffered  to  become  law,  we  shall,  after  the  expiration  of  three 
years,  be  annually  in  the  receipt  of  5,000,000  quarters  of  foreign  wheat 
and  flour  (probably  more) ,  provided  the  seasons  be  ordinarily  favourable, 
and  our  average  prices  admit  of  the  sale  of  it  at  not  less  than  36s.  to  40s. 
per  quarter  gross  in  England,  the  duty  being  Is.  per  quarter  as  proposed. 

Between  September,  1844,  and  May,  1845,  during  the  whole 
of  which  time  the  price  was  permanently  from  45s.  to  46s., 
and  the  duty  20s.,  there  were  entered  for  home  consumption 
120,000  quarters  of  wheat,  which,  consequently,  realised  to 
the  importers  from  25s.  to  26s.  a  quarter.  But  I  am  not 
absurd  enough  to  suppose  that  if  the  duty  had  been  taken  off, 
because  these  parties  could  afford  to  import  and  sell  corn  at 
from  25s.  to  26s.  therefore  they  would  not  have  done  so. 
These  parties  would  have  derived  very  large  profits  from  their 
importation,  and  what  would  have  been  the  result  ? 

There  are  many  districts  of  country  on  the  Continent,  larger, 


DERBY  71 

perhaps,  than  many  of  your  lordships  imagine,  which  might 
be  devoted  to  the  growth  of  com.  Look,  for  example,  at  the 
plains  of  Hmigary.  There  you  have  very  considerable  dis- 
tricts admirably  qualified  for  the  growth  of  wheat,  to  the 
cultivation  of  which  the  opening  of  your  markets  will  give 
great  encouragement.  But  even  supposing  that  no  great 
addition  be  made  to  the  area  of  the  corn-exporting  countries, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  appUcation  of  skill  and  capital 
to  the  improved  cultivation  of  the  land,  would  give  to  the 
cultivator  a  far  greater  amount  of  produce  from  the  present 
area  than  it  now  yields.  Your  calumniated  and  ill  treated 
farmers  can  produce  about  28  bushels  to  the  acre  ;  in  hardly 
any  other  country  is  the  produce  more  than  14  bushels  to  the 
acre.  A  large  profit  is  derived  by  importers  from  these  coun- 
tries. This  tends  to  the  application  of  capital  to  the  improve- 
ment of  the  soil.  The  continued  application  of  capital  and 
skill  enables  the  cultivator  to  produce  his  com  much  more 
cheaply,  and  the  same  effect  will  be  produced  by  the  applica- 
tion of  capital  to  improve  and  facihtate  the  means  of  shipment. 
My  objections  to  this  measure,  therefore,  are  not  lessened 
but  rather  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  you  will  not  feel  the 
injury  it  entails  all  at  once,  but  that,  gradually  and  progres- 
sively, the  importation  of  a  larger  and  larger  amount  of  foreign 
supply  will  be  encouraged  by  your  legislation,  and  will  by 
degrees  drive  out  of  cultivation  a  larger  and  larger  amount  of 
com  land  in  this  country. 

But  it  is  said  that  when  the  price  of  com  falls  the  manu- 
facturers will  obtain  a  great  outlet  for  their  goods,  and  will 
be  able  to  sell  them  at  a  much  cheaper  rate.  But  how  are  they 
to  sell  them  much  more  cheaply  than  at  present  ?  How  is 
this  cheapness  to  be  effected  ?  If  it  is  to  be  effected  at  all, 
it  will  be  effected  by  a  reduction  of  wages.  I  thought  it  was 
the  favourite  doctrine  of  the  Anti-Com-Law  League,  I  know 
it  is  a  view  which  has  been  taken  by  some  members  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government,  that  the  price  of  com  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  amount  of  wages.  As  I  have  said,  it  is  anticipated 
that  by  the  repeal  of  the  present  com  law,  the  manufacturers  will 
be  able  to  produce  their  goods  more  cheaply.  I  do  not  exactly 
understand  how  they  can  do  this  without  paying  their  labourers 
lower  wages.  Now  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  either  in  the 
manufacturing  or  the  agricultural  districts  the  rate  ofVages 


72  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

exactly  or  regularly  follows  the  price  of  com  ;  certainly,  it 
does  not  follow  all  the  fluctuations  in  the  price  of  corn.  I  say 
that  wages,  like  everything  else,  are  regulated  by  the  proportion 
between  the  demand  and  supply.  In  proportion  to  the 
demand  for  labour,  the  working  classes  are  ready  to  enter 
into  competition  for  that  labour  at  such  a  rate  as  would  afford 
them  a  given  amount  of  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life. 
But  that  amount  of  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life  must 
be  ultimately  measured  by  money  ;  and,  consequently,  the 
competition  remaining  the  same,  if  a  lower  amount  of  money 
would  procure  the  same  amount  of  the  necessaries  and  comforts 
of  hfe,  the  price  of  labour  must  fall  in  proportion  as  the  price 
of  corn  falls.  I  do  not  say,  however,  that  it  will  follow  all  the 
fluctuations  of  corn.     This  is  an  important  point. 

It  is  of  vast  importance  to  the  labouring  population  that 
the  price  of  corn  should  be  steady,  be  it  high  or  be  it  low. 
The  labourer,  when  prices  are  low,  has  not  the  prudence  or 
foresight  to  economise  his  earnings,  and  when  the  pendulum 
swings  the  other  way  he  is  too  often  plunged  into  a  state  of 
distress.  It  is,  then,  in  the  absence  of  fluctuation  from  one 
extreme  to  another,  and  not  on  the  average  money-rate  of 
wages,  that  the  comfort  of  the  labourer  mainly  depends.  If, 
however,  the  labourer's  money  wages  are  to  be  reduced,  he 
ought,  I  think,  to  have  fairly  stated  the  balance  of  the  advan- 
tage and  disadvantage  to  which  he  is  about  to  be  exposed 
under  this  system.  Take  the  case  of  a  man  with  a  wife  and 
family  of  three  children  in  the  manufacturing  districts.  I  will 
make  a  large  allowance,  and  suppose  that  they  consume  five 
quarters  of  wheat  in  the  course  of  a  year.  I  will  assume  that 
there  is  a  permanent  fall  of  10s.  in  the  price  of  wheat.  A 
diminution  of  Is.  per  week  from  the  wages  of  any  one  member 
of  that  family  (and  you  can  hardly  suppose  that  any  diminution 
would  be  less  than  that)  more  than  counterbalances  all  the 
advantages  he  and  his  family  would  derive  from  a  reduction 
of  50s.  in  the  price  of  the  five  quarters  of  com  they  consume. 

But,  then,  we  are  told  that,  even  if  manufactures  do  not 
become  cheaper,  trade  will  increase  largely,  from  the  necessity, 
on  the  part  of  foreign  countries,  of  taking  our  goods  in  exchange 
for  their  produce.  This  argument  assumes  that  Russia, 
Prussia,  and  the  United  States  do  not  take  our  manufactures 
because  we  receive  their  com  in  exchange.     There  never  was 


DERBY  73 

argument  less  founded  on  fact  than  that.  The  fact  is,  with 
regard  to  all  those  countries,  that  at  the  present  moment  our 
imports  from  them  largely  preponderate  over  our  exports 
to  them,  and  the  duties  we  impose  upon  their  goods — aye, 
even  upon  com  and  timber — are  far  lower  than  the  average 
amount  of  duties  which  all  those  countries  charge  upon  the 
principal  articles  of  our  manufacture  which  we  export  to  them. 
Take  the  case  of  our  trade  with  the  United  States.  You  may, 
perhaps,  be  surprised  to  learn  that  the  value  of  the  cotton  alone 
which  we  take  from  the  United  States  in  the  course  of  a  single 
year,  far  exceeds  the  value  of  all  the  goods  put  together  which 
we  export  to  the  United  States  in  the  same  period.  For  a 
period  of  five  years,  the  average  value  of  our  imports  to  the 
United  States  has  been  ^^5,700,000  a  year.  For  a  period  of 
eighteen  years  it  has  averaged  about  ;^ ,000,000  a  year.  Now, 
assuming  that  we  take  four-fifths  of  our  whole  supply  of  cotton 
from  the  United  States,  and  that  that  cotton  is  worth  4d.  per  lb. 
(a  low  average),  our  imports  of  cotton  alone  from  the  United 
States  have  amounted  in  those  five  years  to  £39,087,000,  or 
an  average  of  £7,817,000  per  annum.  Since  1827  our  imports 
of  cotton  have  increased  from  177,000,000  lbs.  to  721,000,000 
lbs.,  while  our  exports  during  the  same  period  have  remained 
stationary. 

I  may  refer  on  this  point  to  an  authority  which  would  not 
be  disputed,  that  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States,  and  I  beg  those  noble  lords  who  advocate  a  system 
of  reciprocity,  and  who  anticipate  those  great  advantages 
which  we  are  to  derive  from  taking  a  large  quantity  of  the 
produce  of  the  United  States,  of  Russia,  and  of  Prussia,  to 
bear  with  me  while  I  quote  from  this  report  from  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  to  his  Government,  the 
fact  that  during  the  last  six  years  the  average  value  of  the 
imports  into  the  United  States  from  British  possessions  had 
been  354,000,000  of  dollars,  leaving  a  balance  of  101,000,000 
dollars  in  favour  of  the  United  States.  "  This," 
the  Secretary  observes,  "  is  the  nominal  balance,  but  there 
should  be  about  25  per  cent.,  at  least,  added  to  this  to  make 
up  the  real  balance.  The  exports  given  in  the  above  table  are 
made  up  according  to  the  home  valuation,  and  the  returns 
from  the  shipments  would,  of  course,  be  increased  by  any 
profits  that  may  be  realised  in  foreign  countries.     There  has 


74  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

been  a  balance  in  our  favour  in  each  of  the  past  six  years,  and, 
with  one  exception  (1836),  in  each  of  the  past  nine  years. 
It  appears  by  these  statements  that  our  foreign  trade  is  yearly 
becoming  more  profitable  to  the  United  States.  Our  export 
trade  in  annually  increasing,  while  our  imports  remain  about 
the  same.  .  .  .  Any  modification  made  in  the  com  laws  of 
Great  Britain,  permitting  the  introduction,  on  reasonable 
terms,  of  our  bread  stuffs,  will  give  an  additional  impetus  to 
our  export  trade,  and  prove  of  immense  advantage  to  the 
producers  of  this  country,  by  giving  an  outlet  for  our  surplus 
produce.  On  the  other  hand  " — well,  what  ?  Of  course  the 
writer  goes  on  to  expatiate  on  the  great  benefits  arising  from 
a  mutual  interchange  of  commodities,  on  the  large  influx  of 
British  manufactures,  on  the  blessed  effects  of  this  increased 
commerce  upon  the  friendly  relations  subsisting  between  the 
two  powers.  He  refers  to  the  indissoluble  hnks  in  which  we 
are  bound  by  commercial  advantages,  and  he  seems  ready  to 
congratulate  us  and  his  countrymen  that  the  little  cloud  in 
the  west  seems  to  have  passed  away.  Not  at  all — "on  the 
other  hand,"  the  Secretary  goes  on  to  say,  "  every  improvement 
or  increase  made  in  our  manufacturing  estabhshment  serves 
to  supply  the  home  demand  for  cotton  and  woollen  manufac- 
tures, and  tends  to  reduce  the  importation  of  these  articles." 
This,  then,  is  to  be  the  result  of  a  hberal  measure  for  allowing 
the  importation  of  bread  stuffs  from  the  United  States.  If 
you  flatter  yourselves  that  by  such  a  measure  you  will  gain 
any  advantage  for  your  manufactures,  undeceive  yourselves  ; 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  tells  you 
that  they  will  soon  be  able  to  dispense  with  your  assistance, 
and  that  they  will  not  require  your  manufactures.  Then 
with  regard  to  Russia,  Mr.  McGregor  states  that  in  1838,  the 
total  exports  of  that  empire  were  valued  at  £11,996,000,  of 
which  ;^6,977,000  were  imported  to  Great  Britain.  The 
average  value  of  the  exports  from  Great  Britain  to  Russia 
is  £1,633,000,  leaving  a  balance  of  £5,300,000  in  favour  of 
Russia.  The  declared  value  of  our  exports  to  Prussia  is 
£505,000,  and  the  estimated  value  of  our  imports  is  £3,138,000. 
You  talk  about  a  duty  of  25,  30,  or  50  per  cent,  upon  timber 
as  an  extravagant  and  prohibitory  duty.  By  the  United  States 
tariff,  the  duty  upon  our  woollens  and  silks  is  40  per  cent., 
upon  our  cotton,  ale,  and  porter,  50  per  cent.  ;  upon  coals, 


DERBY  75 

60  per  cent. ;  and  upon  paper,  75  per  cent.  ;  and  their  duties 
upon  various  other  articles  of  our  manufacture,  which  are 
principally  articles  of  export,  range  from  45  to  150  per  cent., 
and  upon  glass  amount  to  243  per  cent.  But  the  tariffs  of 
Russia  and  Prussia  are  equally  restrictive.  "  Russia,"  says 
Mr.  McGregor,  "  may  be  said  to  prohibit  the  importation  of 
every  material  which  can  be  drawn,  by  the  labour  of  her  serfs, 
from  her  mines  and  forests,  and  every  foreign  manufactured 
article,  in  order  that  the  labour  of  these  serfs,  with  the  aid  of 
machinery  either  imported  or  made  in  the  country,  and  directed 
by  skilful  foreign  artisans,  shall  be  made  to  produce  articles 
either  similar  to,  or  that  may  be  substituted  for,  those  of 
foreign  manufacture."  Those  articles  of  your  manufacture, 
the  importation  of  which  is  not  prohibited  by  Russia,  are 
subjected  to  an  average  duty  of  65  per  cent.,  ranging  upon 
some  articles,  for  instance,  glass,  to  900  per  cent.  And  yet  the 
argument  is  boldly  put  forward  that  it  is  our  protective 
system,  imposing,  as  it  does,  a  duty  of  about  25  per  cent,  upon 
the  importation  of  com,  which  prevents  us  from  receiving 
the  produce  of  those  countries  which  levy  a  duty  of  60,  70, 
or  100  per  cent,  upon  our  manufactures.  In  1839,  Dr.  Bowring, 
who  was  employed  by  the  then  Secretary  of  State  in  prosecuting 
some  inquiries  on  this  subject,  reports  as  follows — 

August  7,  1839. — I  have  put  prominently  forward  the  subject  of 
cotton  and  woollen  manufactures  ;  I  have  been  asked  what  we  were 
disposed  to  do,  I  have  mentioned  that  the  question  of  the  timber  duties 
might  be  opened,  and  any  other  minor  subject  interesting  to  the  Prus- 
sian Government.  On  these  grounds  they  are  wilhng  to  treat.  Prussia 
will  propose  and  support  a  great  reduction  of  the  duty  on  cotton 
fabrics  ;  she  will  also  recommend  a  new  classification  of  woollens, 
so  that  the  duty  shall  press  less  heavily  on  the  low  qualities  ;  the 
extent  of  the  reduction  will  depend  on  the  powers  which  England  has 
of  meeting  her,  and  I  hope  your  lordships  will  favour  me  with  early 
instructions. 

And  again  the  same  year — 

It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  amount  of  changes  to  be  obtained  here  is 
wholly  dependent  upon  the  views  and  powers  of  the  Government  at  home, 
and  to  our  own  legislation.  I  have  put  forward  the  points  which  interest 
us  most,  viz.  :  reductions  on  the  duties  on  cottons,  woollens,  hardware, 
and  pottery.  The  general  reply  is  that  Prussia  will  recommend  dimin- 
ished duties  on  these  articles,  and  will  try  to  give  effect  to  her  recom- 
mendations, if  we  can  obtain  liberal  modifications  of  the  corn  and  timber 
duties  in  Great  Britain.  I  have  explained  all  the  difficulties  of  these 
questions,  but  still  am  very  anxious  to  obtain  ^from  the  Prussian 
Government  specific  declarations  that  if  such  and  such  changes  take 


76  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

place  in  England,  they  will  be  met  by  such  and  such  changes  here. 
The  head  of  the  Customs  says  they  will  entertain  a  proposal  for  a  general 
reduction  of  the  duties  on  cottons,  and  for  a  classification  of  the  duties  on 
woollens,  so  as  to  relieve  the  lower  qualities  of  the  prohibition  which  the 
system  of  taking  the  duties  by  weight  brings  with  it,  and  for  lowering  the 
duties  on  hardware  and  pottery  ;  the  groundwork  of  the  understanding 
to  be,  that  so  much  shall  be  deducted  if  the  duties  on  timber  are  lowered 
so  much,  and  so  much  more  if  a  fixed  duty  be  laid  on  wheat,  instead  of  the 
present  fluctuating  scale.  I  have  not  found  any  of  the  authorities  here 
expecting  the  introduction  of  their  corn  into  England  duty  free. 

Well,  my  lords,  we  have  reduced  the  duty  on  timber  "  so 
much,"  and  we  are  about  to  do,  with  respect  to  com,  more  than 
any  of  the  Prussian  authorities  ventured  to  expect ;  and  now 
let  me  ask  my  noble  friend,  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  how  much  has  Prussia  done,  and  how  much  does  he 
expect  she  will  do  in  reference  to  our  cottons,  woollens,  hard- 
ware and  pottery  ?  What  has  been  the  effect  of  the  reductions 
we  have  already  made  in  the  duty  on  timber,  with  regard  to 
our  exports  of  cotton  to  the  northern  states  of  Europe  ?  Since 
1841,  our  imports  of  timber  have  increased  from  351,000 
loads  to  642,000  loads.  Now  in  1843  we  exported  to  Russia, 
Prussia,  Denmark,  and  Sweden,  2,200,000  yards  of  plain  cotton  ; 
now  we  export  only  2,000,000.  We  then  exported  1,200,000 
yards  of  printed  cottons  ;  now  we  export  only  970,000  yards. 
Your  imports  of  timber  have  nearly  doubled,  but  your  exports 
to  these  people,  in  spite  of  Dr.  Bowring's  prediction,  have 
fallen  off  instead  of  increasing. 

I  suppose,  at  all  events,  that  your  shipping  trade  has 
improved. 

I  have  been  told  that  British  rrterchants  wiU  not  engage 
in  the  com  trade  because  it  is  speculative.  Speculation  is 
the  basis  of  all  trade.  Take  off  what  duties  you  please,  the 
corn  trade  must  be  eminently  speculative,  because  it  is  depen- 
dent on  the  seasons  and  the  probable  demand  in  this  country. 
But  it  is  said,  our  merchants  are  too  wise  to  engage  in  these 
speculations.  It  is  said  they  are  unsuited  to  the  character 
of  the  British  nation.  It  is  said  that  hazardous  speculations 
leading  possibly  to  great  risk,  and  possibly  to  great  gain, 
are  so  adverse  to  the  character  of  the  people  of  this  country, 
that  it  is  not  likely  any  great  number  of  persons  would  engage 
in  them.  And  this  is  said  in  the  year  1846.  Well,  but  the 
timber  trade  is  not  a  speculative  trade.  We  have  opened 
that    trade.     Our  shipping,   of    course,   has  entered  largely 


DERBY  77 

into  that  trade.  Listen  to  a  fact  which  is  of  great  importance. 
In  1839  the  Baltic  trade  employed  612  British  ships  against 
566  foreign  ships.  In  1845  it  employed  609  British  ships 
against  1,845  foreigners.  In  1839  there  were  6,016  British 
seamen  employed,  against  6,300  foreign  seamen ;  in  1845 
there  were  5,375  British  seamen  employed,  against  17,169 
foreigners.  But  even  if  I  were  to  admit  that  you  might  pro- 
duce a  large  increase  in  your  manufactures  for  a  time,  under 
a  system  of  free  trade,  that  you  might  puff  up  your  manu- 
factures with  a  brief  but  extraordinary  prosperity ;  when  that 
fails,  as  it  will  fail — when  the  day  of  difficulty  and  distress 
comes — when  war  intervenes  !  I  think  my  right  honourable 
friend  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  would  feel 
much  more  easy  in  the  event  of  a  war  with  the  United  States 
(which  God  forbid  !)  if,  instead  of  drawing  four-fifths  of  our 
cotton  from  the  United  States,  we  drew  four-fifths  of  it  from 
our  own  territories.  But,  when  war  comes,  these  markets 
will  be  closed  against  you.  You  will  have  destroyed  the  home 
market,  and  when  you  have  destroyed  the  home  market,  and 
the  foreign  market  fails  you,  then  comes  the  period  of  depression ; 
then  come  the  bitter  sufferings  of  the  manufacturers  ;  then 
comes  the  bitter  feehng  of  reaction  against  those  who  are  now 
deluding  their  unhappy  dupes  with  the  prospect  of  cheap 
wages  and  of  cheap  bread. 

Now,  my  lords,  I  have  spoken  of  the  home  market.  Don't 
let  your  lordships,  and  don't  let  the  country,  undervalue  the 
importance  of  the  home  market.  If  you  were  to  believe  certain 
cotton  manufacturers — ^if  you  were  to  believe  what  has  been 
put  forward  in  another  place — you  would  believe  that  seven- 
eighths  of  the  whole  quantity  of  cotton  goods  are  exported, 
and  that  the  consumption  of  cotton  goods  among  the  popula- 
tion of  this  country  amounts  to  Uttle  more  than  2s.  per  head. 
Your  lordships  will  judge  of  the  accuracy  of  that  statement, 
when  I  tell  you  that  in  1840  the  consumption  of  the  West 
Indies  was,  not  2s.  per  head,  but  £1  6s.  per  head  of  the  popula- 
tion. I  cannot  believe  that  when  the  West  Indies  consume 
£\  6s.  per  head  of  your  cotton  goods,  the  population  of  this 
country  consume  only  2s.  per  head.  Now,  I  don't  hesitate 
to  state  my  conviction  that  the  home  market  of  this  country 
is  to  the  foreign  as  forty  to  seventeen.  In  the  year  1820  there 
were  exported  248,000  yards  of  cotton  made  up  into  goods. 


78  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

In  1844  that  quantity  was  increased  to  1,046,000  yards,  or 
nearly  fourfold  ;  but  in  consequence  of  the  immense  fall  in 
price  that  fourfold  increase  in  quantity  produced  an  increase 
of  only  one-fourth  in  the  value.  The  value  was  £17,612,000 
against  £13,000,000  in  the  former  year.  In  1823,  Mr.  Hus- 
kisson  estimated  the  value  of  cotton  goods  consumed  in 
England  at  £32,000,000;  and  I  find  that  the  home  consumption, 
deducting  all  that  had  been  exported  was  73,000,000  of  lbs. 
weight  in  the  year  1820,  and  that  it  had  increased  to  280,000,000 
of  lbs.  weight  worked  up  for  goods,  emplo3dng  British  labour, 
and  paid  by  British  consumers,  in  1843,  Allowing  that  there 
has  been  a  proportionate  reduction  in  the  price  of  articles  of 
home  consumption,  that  the  increase,  therefore,  of  fourfold 
amount  has  only  been  one-fourth  in  value,  your  whole  con- 
sumption in  1843  was  worth — and  it  is  m.uch  more  now — 
£40,000,000  sterUng,  against  an  export  of  cotton  goods  to  the 
value  of  £17,612,000.  £40,000,000  is  a  low  estimate  for  the 
amount  of  cotton  goods  worked  up  and  consumed  in  this 
country  ;  and  if  I  take  the  great  articles  of  produce  of  this 
country — cotton,  woollen,  hnen,  silk,  coals  and  culm,  iron, 
hardware,  brass,  copper,  leather,  saddlery,  cabinet  wares, 
and  papers — of  which  the  exports  amount  in  value  to 
£48,344,000  ;  at  a  low  estimate  the  total  amount  produced 
is  £250,000,000,  thus  leaving  nearly  £200,000,000  out  of  the 
£250,000,000  for  the  consumption  of  the  home  market.  Now, 
my  lords,  that  is  the  market  you  are  now  called  upon  to 
endanger ;  these  are  the  customers  you  are  about  to  sacrifice 
in  your  bhnd  zeal  to  promote  the  export  trade  by  your  "  cheap 
bread,"  and  the  importation  of  foreign  com. 

But  then  I  am  told  by  the  manufacturers,  "  Surely,  a  reduc- 
tion in  the  price  of  com  will  necessarily  cause  an  increase  in 
the  consumption."  That  is  not  quite  so  clear.  There  may  be 
a  diminution  in  the  price  of  corn,  but  cheapness  and  deamess, 
my  lords,  are  relative  terms  ;  they  are  not  positive  terms. 
An  article  may  be  cheap  in  point  of  money  cost,  but  very  dear 
in  point  of  abihty  on  the  part  of  the  consumer  to  purchase. 
Wheat  is  cheaper  in  Ireland  than  in  England — cheaper  in  Poland 
than  in  Ireland ;  but  wheat  is  not  more  within  the  reach  of 
the  population  of  Poland  than  of  the  population  of  England, 
and,  paying  an  infinitely  higher  price  for  articles  of  consump- 
tion, the  ability  of  the  consumer  to  purchase  makes  the  articles 


DERBY  79 

virtually  cheaper — that  is  to  say,  more  within  his  reach ;  and 
he  is,  therefore,  able  to  consume  more  of  them.  Therefore 
it  does  not  follow  because  you  reduce  the  price  of  com,  and 
thereby  diminish  the  cost  of  your  manufactures,  that  you 
increase  the  consumption  of  manufactures,  and  that,  therefore, 
your  home  consumers  will  be  able  to  take  a  larger,  or  even  the 
same  amount  as  at  present. 

I  have  gone  over  a  great  part  of  this  question,  and  I  know 
how  I  have  trespassed  upon  your  attention.  I  come  now 
to  the  question,  "  Upon  whom  will  this  loss  fall  ?  "  I  saw 
lately  in  one  of  the  French  newspapers  an  article  upon  the 
probable  effect  of  the  destruction  of  the  com  law,  and  there 
was  this  philosophical  argument  made  use  of  : — "  Quand 
mime  ces  millionaires  d^ Anglais  perdraient  le  quart  de  leur 
revenus  its  n'en  jouiraient  pas  moins  des  doucurs  de  la  vie." 
Now  I,  for  my  part,  am  not  satisfied  to  have  one-fourth  of  our 
incomes  taken  away,  though  we  may  have  some  of  "  the  sweets 
of  Hfe  "  remaining.  Something  has  been  said,  in  language 
unfairly  and  unjustly  misapprehended — something  has  been 
said  about  the  difficulty  of  administering  the  affairs  of  the 
Govemment  and  reconciling  the  conflicting  claims  of  "  an 
ancient  monarchy,  a  proud  aristocracy,  and  a  reformed  House 
of  Commons."  Now,  my  lords,  I  entirely  put  by  the  erroneous 
interpretation  given  to  that  expression.  I  admit  the  senti- 
ment, I  admit  the  difficvilty,  and  I  admit  further  than  that : 
I^admit  that  you  are  bound  not  to  legislate  for  a  class.  You 
are  not  to  legislate  for  the  interest  of  one  class  against  the 
interest  of  another ;  but  this  I  say,  that  if  you  materially  alter 
the  social  relations  of  the  different  classes  of  the  community  in 
this  country — ^if  you  lower  one  at  the  expense  of  another,  it 
is  not  a  private  injustice,  but  a  pubhc  injury  that  you  inflict 
upon  society ;  and  whatever  may  be  the  difficulty  of  keeping 
the  balance  between  the  "  ancient  monarchy,"  the  "  proud 
aristocracy,"  and  the  "  reformed  House  of  Commons,"  rely 
upon  it,  my  lords,  the  difficulty  will  not  be  less,  if  for  "a 
proud  " — in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word — you  substitute  a 
"  pauper  and  dependent  aristocracy."  And  if  you  do,  rely 
upon  it,  you  break  down  in  that  "  proud  aristocracy,"  the 
firmest  breakwater  and  the  safest  barrier  between  that  Umited 
monarchy  and  that  spirit  of  democracy  which  is  fitly  represented 
in  the  reformed  House  of  Commons. 


80  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Do  not  mistake  me  when  I  speak  of  the  aristocracy.  I 
do  not  speak  exclusively,  I  do  not  speak  mainly,  of  that  body 
which  I  have  now  the  honour  to  address.  I  speak,  my  lords, 
of  the  great  body  of  landed  proprietors  of  this  country.  I 
speak  of  men  unennobled  by  rank,  and  many  of  them  undis- 
tinguished by  great  wealth,  but  who,  and  their  ancestors  before 
them,  for  generations  after  generations,  have  been  the  centre 
each  of  his  respective  locality — who  have  the  prestige  of  old 
associations  attached  to  their  names  ;  who  conduct  the  business 
of  their  respective  counties  ;  who  influence  the  opinions  and 
feelings  of  their  respective  neighbourhoods ;  who  exercise 
a  modest  and  a  decent  hospitahty,  and  preside  over  a  tenantry 
who  have  hereditary  claims  upon  their  consideration  and 
affections.  My  lords,  these  are  the  aristocracy  of  this  country 
to  whom  I  allude.  Reduce  these  men,  and  you  inflict  an 
irretrievable  and  irreparable  injury  upon  the  country.  Lower 
them  in  the  scale,  and  you  have  deranged  the  social  machine 
beyond  the  power  of  correction.  God  forbid  that  the  successful 
manufacturer  or  that  the  princely  merchant  should  not  take 
his  place  among  the  landed  aristocracy  of  this  country.  Such 
infusions  add  fresh  vigour  and  power  to  that  class  of  the 
community  ;  but  depend  upon  it,  if  you  sweep  that  class  away 
at  once,  with  all  the  associations  attached  to  their  names,  their 
famihes,  their  histories,  and  the  previous  associations  which 
belong  to  the  character  of  their  famihes,  and  substitute  a 
new  body  of  capitalists,  to  come  amidst  an  unattached  tenantry 
and  a  neighbourhood  where  no  associations  are  connected  with 
their  names,  the  moral  effect  of  the  loss  of  that  influence  will 
be  irretrievable. 

I  say  I  should  not  be  satisfied  if  I  were  to  beheve  that  the 
loss  would  mainly  fall  upon  the  proprietors  of  this  country, 
but  I  am  satisfied  that  there  never  was  so  great  a  delusion  as 
this.  Why,  a  reduction  of  10s.  a  quarter  on  wheat  is  equivalent 
to  a  reduction  of  40s.  an  acre  on  a  great  portion  of  the  wheat 
lands  of  this  country,  and  accompanied  by  a  corresponding 
reduction  in  the  price  of  other  articles  that  will  go  far  to  eat 
up  the  whole  rental  of  the  landed  proprietor.  My  noble  friend 
on  the  cross  benches  most  ably  argued  this  part  of  the  case, 
and  I  will  not  therefore  dwell  at  any  great  length  upon  it. 
The  fact  is,  that  the  loss  will  fall — aye,  and  they  know  it  will 
fall — they  showed  by  their  feehngs  the  other  day  that  it  will 


DERBY  81 

fall,  not  mainly  on  the  landlords,  but  on  the  tenant-farmers. 
The  first  step  these  tenant-farmers  will  take  to  relieve  them- 
selves will  be  to  suspend  improvements — will  be  to  discharge 
the  labourers — will  be  to  reduce  wages — will  be  to  drive  those 
unhappy  labourers  into  the  manufacturing  districts,  to  enter 
into  hopeless  competition  there  for  the  lowest  class  of  employ- 
ment in  manufacturing  labour,  carr5ring  their  own  wretchedness 
to  pine  away  in  the  manufacturing  towns,  adding  to  the 
already  grievous  competition  for  employment,  and  thus 
pressing  down  the  wages  of  the  manufacturing  operatives 
as  well  as  those  of  agricultural  labourers.  What  would  be 
the  consequences  to  the  landed  proprietors  of  the  country  ? 
I  will  assume  even  the  case  of  one  unencumbered  by 
debt,  whose  income  is  entirely  clear,  though  I  fear  such 
cases  are  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  But  what  is 
the  first  thing  he  does  ?  He  dismisses  a  portion  of  his  estab- 
lishment. It  is  no  great  sacrifice  of  real  comfort  to  him,  but 
it  turns  into  the  labour  market  a  great  number  of  competitors 
for  labour  whom  his  fortune  has  employed  ;  and,  mind  you, 
whatever  else  may  be  said  against  the  landed  proprietors 
of  the  country,  I  do  not  think  that  it  can  be  charged  against 
them  that  they  are  a  class  of  men  accumulating  and  hoarding 
wealth,  and  not  spending  their  incomes  at  least  as  fast  as  they 
receive  them.  Well,  then,  they  reduce  the  employment. 
And  now  mind  what  we  are  told,  "  True,  but  you  may  make 
up  any  loss  to  yourselves.  You  have  only  to  act  up  to  the 
real  principles  of  free  trade."  Well,  what  are  these  principles 
of  free  trade  ?  They  are,  to  dismiss  every  useless  and  un- 
profitable hand.  They  are  to  employ  no  men  beyond  those 
who  are  absolutely  required  to  make  a  profit  for  themselves. 
They  are  to  have  no  consideration  whatever  for  the  tenants 
who  may  have  been  upon  the  land  for  fifty  years.  No  ;  it 
is  more  profitable  to  have  one  large  farm  than  three  small  ones. 
Pull  down  two  or  three  houses  of  human  beings  and  establish 
one  great  farm — ^it  is  cheaper  and  will  keep  up  your  rents. 
Your  new  tenants  have  capital,  the  others  have  none — let 
them  go  and  starve.  There  are  not  above  600,000  tenants 
whose  holdings  are  under  ^^200  a  year — at  least,  there  were 
not  in  1814.  Do  not  stop  at  such  a  "  drop  in  the  ocean  "  as 
that.  Turn  them  adrift ;  bring  new  tenants  from  a  distance, 
from  the  Anti-Com-Law  League,   place  them  on  large  farms, 

6 — (2171) 


82  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

encourage  them  to  spend  capital,  and  then  you  will  be  able  to 
recover  all  the  injurious  effects  of  a  fall  in  the  price  of  com  ; 
that  is,  if  the  law  does  not  prohibit  it.  But,  my  lords,  the  law 
imposes  upon  you  the  burden,  even  if  your  own  feeUngs  would 
not  revolt  at  such  a  system — the  law  imposes  upon  you  the 
burden  of  maintaining  all  the  poor.  But  I  have  too  good  an 
opinion  of  the  landlords  of  England  to  beheve  that  they  would 
act  on  such  principles.  I  beheve  that  to  the  extent  of  their 
abihty  they  would  go  on  giving  the  utmost  amount  of  employ- 
ment that  they  could.  I  beheve  they  know  that  they  have  to 
deal,  not  with  stocks  and  stones,  but  with  men,  human  beings, 
with  the  same  feehngs,  the  same  attachments,  the  same 
affections  as  themselves.  And  I  do  not  believe  that,  under 
the  pressure  of  the  greatest  dif&culty,  the  landlords  of  England 
as  a  body  would  adopt  for  their  own  protection  the  cold  and 
selfish  and  calculating  doctrines  of  free  trade. 

But,  my  lords,  if  this  system  is  to  be  adopted  in  England — 
if  you  venture  to  recommend  this  system  in  England,  will 
you  dare  to  advise  that  it  should  be  carried  into  execution  in 
Ireland  ?  In  Ireland  the  bulk  of  the  population  are  small 
farmers,  holding  farms  which  vary  from  one  to  twelve  acres, — - 
a  farm  of  fifteen  acres  is  a  large  farm.  They  have  no  capital 
and  but  httle  skiU.  They  exhaust  the  land.  I  admit  it. 
They  do  not  pay  half  the  rent  which  the  employment  of  greater 
skill  and  capital  would  extract  from  the  land.  Carry  your 
pohtical  economy  into  effect  there  and  see  what  would  be  the 
result.  I  think  I  have  heard  it  advanced  that  the  clearance 
system  is  at  the  root  of  half  the  evils  of  Ireland.  But  free 
trade  requires  it,  and  you  must  make  more  money.  Turn 
them  out,  and  when  the  existing  generation  is  starved  off, 
you  may,  perhaps,  see  your  system  in  successful  operation. 
My  lords,  he  must  be  a  bold  Minister  who  would  advise  such 
an  experiment  to  be  made,  but  he  must  be  a  bold  as  well  as  a 
hard  man  who  would  act  upon  it.  And  then  to  tell  me  that 
this  measure — this  repeal  of  the  com  law — is  brought  forward 
as  a  measure  of  rehef  to  Ireland  above  all !  I  understand 
what  you  mean  when  you  talk  of  rehef  to  England.  England 
is  an  importing  country  ;  it  may  be  for  the  benefit  of  her 
population,  though  I  doubt  if  it  be  found  to  be  so  in  the  long 
run,  that  the  price  of  com  should  be  greatly  lowered  ;  but  then, 
as  to  Ireland,   whose  exports  are  exclusively  agricultural,  and 


DERBY  83 

which  is  entirely  an  exporting,  not  an  importing  country — 
to  say  that  you  are  benefiting  Ireland  by  reducing  the  value 
of  those  exports  by  which  alone  she  can  obtain  a  return  of 
the  comforts  of  hfe  and  the  articles  of  manufacture  which  she 
receives  from  you  to  the  extent  of  £1,500,000,  or  £2,000,000 
sterhng  a  year,  is  a  proposition  which  I  would  place  by  the  side 
of  that  other  paradox,  that  increased  competition  tends  to 
raise  prices. 

Lastly,  and  I  am  sure  your  lordships  will  be  glad  to  find 
that  I  am  drawing  to  a  close,  I  must  call  your  attention  to  one 
branch  of  the  question  so  important  that  it  cannot  be  over- 
looked, and  upon  which  from  the  situation  I  lately  had  the 
honour  of  holding,  I  feel  that  I  am  entitled  to  address  you. 
I  allude  to  the  effect  which  is  to  be  produced,  not  by  the 
repeal  of  the  com  law,  but  by  the  principles  of  free  trade, 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  removal  of  protection,  upon  the  colonies. 
Now  your  foreign  trade  takes  a  very  large  amount  of  foreign 
shipping,  and  a  very  small  amount  of  British  shipping  ;  I 
beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  in  the  first  instance, 
that  by  a  return  laid  before  the  House  of  Commons  in  the 
year  1845,  the  tonnage  of  ships  to  your  colonies  was  1,273,395 
tons  British,  entered  inwards,  against  not  one  single  ton  foreign. 
Cleared  outwards  there  were  1,263,432  tons  British,  against 
3,702  tons  foreign  ;  your  colonial  trade,  therefore,  being,  as 
it  always  is,  exclusively  carried  on  in  British  ships,  employing 
British  seamen  and  giving  the  profit  of  the  trade  on  both  sides 
to  British  subjects  exclusively.  I  will  not  enter  upon  the 
extent  of  that  trade.  But  here  are  a  certain  number  of  the 
colonies,  the  exports  to  which  in  the  year  1844,  amounted  to 
no  less  than  £14,247,714. 

And  now,  my  lords,  allow  me  to  say  in  passing,  that  when 
we  calculate  the  amount  of  the  export  trade  of  this  country, 
we  include  in  that  export  trade,  which  bears  so  small  a  pro- 
portion to  the  home  trade — we  include  in  that  trade  the  trade 
which  goes  on  with  your  colonial  empire,  and  amounting  to 
one-third  of  the  whole.  Now,  destroy  this  principle  of  pro- 
tection, and  I  tell  you  in  this  place  that  you  destroy  the  whole 
basis  upon  which  your  colonial  system  rests.  My  lords,  if 
you  do  not  know  the  advantages  of  your  colonies.  Napoleon 
Bonaparte  knew  them  well.  It  is  by  your  colonial  system, 
based  upon  the  principles  of  protection,  that  you  have  extended 


84  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

your  arms — I  do  not  mean  your  military  arms,  I  mean  your 
commercial  arms — to  every  quarter  and  every  comer  of  the 
globe.  It  is  to  your  colonial  system  that  you  owe  it  that 
there  is  not  a  sea  on  which  the  flag  of  England  does  not  float ; 
that  there  is  not  a  quarter  of  the  world  in  which  the  language 
of  England  is  not  heard  ;  that  there  is  not  a  quarter  of  the 
globe,  that  there  is  no  zone  in  either  hemisphere  in 
which  there  are  not  thousands  who  recognise  the 
sovereignty  of  Britain — to  whom  that  language  and  that 
flag  speak  of  a  home,  dear,  though  distant,  of  common  interests, 
of  common  affections — men  who  share  in  your  glories — men 
who  sympathise  in  your  adversities,  men  who  are  proud  to 
bear  their  share  of  your  burdens,  to  be  embraced  within  the 
arms  of  your  commercial  poUcy,  and  to  feel  that  they  are 
members  of  your  great  imperial  ZoUverein. 

It  was  said,  I  think,  by  Mr.  Cobden,  that  a  system  of  pro- 
tection is  a  system  of  mutual  robbery.  I  admit  that  it  is  a 
"  mutual  system  "  ;  it  is  a  system  under  which,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  which,  each  surrenders  some  advantage  to  himself 
for  the  purpose  of  partaking  in  the  general  advantage  of  all — 
it  is  a  system  by  which  each  sacrifices  something  of  the  profits 
of  his  own  trade,  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  a  reciprocal 
advantage  from  others.  I  am  not  sure  that  it  would  not  be 
found  in  the  end  that  a  certain  reciprocity  of  profits — a  system 
in  which  both  parties  gain,  both  parties  are  secured  against 
hostile  interference,  against  foreign  intrusion,  against  foreign 
caprice  and  foreign  hostihty — would,  in  fact,  in  the  long 
run,  be  that  of  which  we  heard  so  much,  "  bujdng  in  the 
cheapest  market  and  selling  in  the  dearest  "  ;  and  that,  even 
though  the  profits  might  not  be  readily  or  distinctly  expressed 
in  a  money  value.  Sure  I  am,  that  whatever  disadvantage 
may  be  sustained  by  the  trifling  additional  amount  of  a  pro- 
tecting duty  on  articles  of  colonial  produce,  and  whatever 
may  be  the  small  amount  added  to  the  cost  of  the  British 
article  under  a  protecting  duty,  still  the  disadvantage  is  amply 
compensated  by  the  extension  of  our  power  over  the  wide 
world — by  securing  for  us  in  every  quarter  friends  and  allies — 
by  securing  for  our  people  certain  employment,  uninterfered 
with  by  foreign  competition — and  by  employing  a  vast  amount 
of  British  seamen,  ready  to  act  at  any  moment  in  defence 
and  for  the  sustainment  of  the  strength  of  the  empire.     I 


DERBY  85 

will  coincide  with  Mr.  Cobden  in  the  correctness  of  his  repre- 
sentation of  the  system  of  "  protection,"  if  he  will  substitute 
for  '*  mutual  robbery "  a  system  of  "  mutual  insurance." 
I  say,  then,  that  upon  the  system  of  protection  is  based  the 
whole  of  our  colonial  system. 

I  know  that  your  political  economists  are  for  casting  ofE 
your  colonies  ;  that  they  say,  let  them  trade  with  us,  or  with 
any  other  country — give  them  the  free  advantage  of  free  trade 
— ^let  us  not  restrain  them — as  they  are  removed  from  all 
protection,  let  them  also  be  free  from  all  burdensome  duty. 
I  do  not  say  that  I  have  any  doubt  as  to  the  loyalty  of  these 
colonies,  for  I  have  no  doubt  of  their  attachment ;  but  I  do 
say  that  you  should  not  do  anything  to  weaken  that  attach- 
ment— that  you  should  be  very  careful  that,  in  granting 
commercial  independence,  you  do  not  take  a  step  to  their 
political  independence.  You  cannot  tell  them  to  trade  freely 
with  all  nations  without  also  telling  them  to  look  no  longer 
to  you  as  their  protectors.  You  tell  the  emigrant  that  from 
the  time  he  sets  sail  from  your  shores,  he  is  no  more  to  you 
than  a  Dutchman,  a  Frenchman,  or  an  American.  You  say 
to  him,  "  Wherever  you  may  be  placed,  you  shall  be  entitled 
to  no  favour  from  us,  and  you  will  get  from  us  no  protection  ; 
you  are  Uke  all  other  foreigners,  and  you  are  just  as  much 
connected  with  them  as  with  us." 

We  are  now  upon  the  question  of  com  ;  but  apply  this 
general  principle  to  that  particular  article  and  mark  the  results. 
Look  at  the  trade  with  Canada,  and  see  what  wiU  be  the 
consequence  of  the  abrogation  of  the  com  law.  I  have  heard 
this  put  forward  as  a  great  boon  to  our  American  colonies. 
I  do  not  exactly  see  how.  At  the  present  moment  wheat  from 
the  American  colonies  can  be  introduced  into  the  market  here 
subject  to  a  duty  which  never  exceeds  5s.  a  quarter.  Upon 
the  payment  of  a  duty  not  exceeding  5s.,  Australia  has  an 
exclusive  admission  to  the  protected  market  of  this  country. 
You  are  about  to  take  away  the  duty  of  5s.  the  quarter,  which, 
it  is  said,  prevents  AustraUan  com  from  being  introduced 
here,  and  then  if  corn  falls  in  price  5s.  a  quarter,  so  far  is 
Austraha  from  being  benefited,  that  it  is  placed  in  a  worse 
position  than  it  was  before.  And  now  what  have  you  done 
with  regard  to  Canada  ?  You  introduced  a  Bill  in  which  you 
promised  to  Canada  a  great  advantage  in  the  British  market. 


86  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

You  presented  it  to  Canada  as  a  protected  market,  and  upon 
the  faith  of  what  you  had  done,  she  imposed  a  duty  of  3s. 
upon  com  and  flour  taken  from  America.  You  encouraged 
Canada  to  make  a  large  outlay  of  money  in  improving  the 
communication  by  the  St.  Lawrence ;  you  even  lent  her  money 
for  that  purpose  ;  you  are  now  about  to  render  that  outlay 
valueless.  You  are  going  to  break  the  promise  you  made 
to  Canada.  You  are  going  to  destroy  the  trade  you  fostered 
and  encouraged.  Nay,  you  are  going  to  do  much  more  ;  you 
are  going  to  destroy  the  improved  communication  of  the  St. 
Lawrence  ;  you  are  going  to  make  the  port  of  New  York  the 
channel  of  commercial  intercourse  between  this  country  and 
Upper  Canada,  instead  of  your  own  St.  Lawrence.  Those  who 
know  that  colony  know  that  I  am  speaking  the  truth,  and 
nothing  but  that.  It  is  a  matter  almost  of  indifference  to 
the  grower  whether  wheat  grown  in  the  western  states  of  the 
Union  and  in  Upper  Canada  is  carried  to  New  York  or  Montreal. 
The  communication  with  New  York  is  somewhat  cheaper  and 
easier.  The  market  of  Montreal  regulates  the  price  of  the 
markets  of  New  York  ;  but  now  the  com  of  the  western  states 
and  Upper  Canada  comes  down  the  St.  Lawrence,  employing 
British  shipping,  and  that  in  our  own  territory,  because  there 
is  a  differential  duty  in  favour  of  its  arriving  by  way  of  Montreal 
and  against  its  coming  by  way  of  New  York.  But  if  this 
measure  passes  that  will  be  changed,  and  the  corn  will  come, 
not  by  your  own  St.  Lawrence,  in  ships  navigated  by  your 
own  countrymen,  but  through  the  United  States ;  and  I  will 
tell  your  lordships  what  is  the  fact.  There  are  merchants  in 
Montreal  who,  in  anticipation  of  this  measure  passing,  are 
preparing  to  set  up  their  establishments  in  New  York.  I 
say  nothing  of  the  effect  you  are  producing  upon  the  feelings 
of  the  people.  I  will  say  nothing  of  the  shock  you  will  give 
to  the  loyalty  of  the  people  ;  but  I  say  this,  you  are  doing 
your  utmost  to  irritate  them  by  your  breach  of  your  engagement 
to  them. 

My  lords,  I  will  not  enter  into  details,  but  I  will  venture 
to  remind  your  lordships  that  as  political  independence  may 
follow  closely  upon  commmercial  independence,  so  pohtical 
dependence  on  another  state  may  also  follow  upon  commercial 
dependence  upon  it.  Are  the  United  States  blind  to  tliis  fact  ? 
Do  they  not  see  the  nature  of  your  suicidal  policy  ?     Are 


DERBY  87 

your  lordships  aware  of  the  Bill  passed  by  the  Congress  one 
or  two  years  ago  ?  That  a  Bill  was  passed,  actually  granting 
a  drawback  to  the  full  amount,  or  almost  so,  of  the  import 
duty  upon  goods  going  into  the  seaports  of  the  United  States, 
provided  those  goods  were  carried  through  the  United  States 
and  reshipped  to  Upper  Canada  ;  and  that  a  Bill  is  now  pending 
in  Congress  for  the  purpose  of  extending  the  import  of  goods 
from  Canada,  to  be  reshipped  to  this  country  from  the  port 
of  New  York  ?  Will  that  fact  of  the  pohcy  of  the  United 
States  open  your  lordships'  eyes  to  the  nature  of  the  pohcy 
which  you  are  pursuing  ? 

Again,  your  lordships  have  read,  or,  if  not,  I  hope  before 
you  come  to  a  decision  upon  this  measure  you  will  read,  the 
despatch  of  the  Governor-General  of  Canada.  This  despatch 
has  been  laid  on  the  table  of  Her  Majesty's  Government.  It 
is  from  their  representative.  Lord  Cathcart,  who  has  been 
recently  appointed.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Government,  not 
in  his  own  name,  but  in  that  of  the  whole  executive  Council 
of  Upper  Canada.     He  thus  writes — 

My  attention  having  been  very  earnestly  called  by  the  members 
of  the  Executive  Council  of  this  province  to  the  apprehensions  they 
have  been  led  to  entertain  by  discussions  which  have  recently  appeared 
in  the  English  newspapers,  pointing  strongly  to  a  change  in  the  corn 
laws,  I  am  induced,  at  their  earnest  desire,  even  with  no  better  foun- 
dation, to  bring  the  subject  under  your  consideration  by  the  mail 
which  leaves  this  night,  as  the  opportunities  for  communication  are 
so  infrequent  as  to  produce  inconvenient  delays.  The  province  of 
Canada  is  so  vitally  interested  in  the  question,  that  it  is  a  duty  of  the 
executive  of  the  province  to  urge  on  the  consideration  of  Her  Majesty's 
Ministers  a  full  statement  of  the  necessity  of  continuing  a  protection 
to  the  colonial  trade  in  wheat  and  flour,  and  of  the  effect  of  any  changes 
by  which  the  protection  hitherto  given  would  be  taken  away.  The 
improvement  of  the  internal  communications  by  water  was  undertaken 
on  the  strength  of  the  advantage  of  exporting  to  England  our  surplus 
wheat  and  flour  by  Quebec.  Should  no  such  advantage  exist,  the 
revenue  of  the  province  to  be  derived  from  the  tolls  would  fail.  The 
means  of  the  province  to  pay  principal  and  interest  on  the  debt  guar- 
anteed by  England  would  be  diminished,  and  the  general  prosperity 
of  the  province  would  be  so  materially  afiected  as  to  reduce  its  revenue 
derived  from  commerce,  thus  rendering  it  a  possible  case  that  the 
guarantee  given  to  the  public  creditors  would  have  to  be  resorted  to 
by  them  for  the  satisfaction  of  their  claims.  The  larger  portion,  nearly 
all  of  the  surplus  produce  of  Canada  is  grown  in  the  western  part  of  it, 
and  if  an  enactment  similar  in  principle  to  the  Duties  Drawback  Law 
should  pass  Congress,  permitting  Canadian  produce  to  pass  through 


88  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

the  United  States  for  shipment,  and,  the  EngUsh  market  was  open  to 
produce  shipped  from  American  ports  on  as  favourable  terms  as  if 
shipped  from  Canadian  ports,  the  larger  portion  of  the  exports  of 
Upper  Canada  would  find  its  way  through  the  canals  of  the  state  of 
New  York,  instead  of  those  of  Canada,  rendering  the  St.  Lawrence 
canals  comparatively  valueless.  The  effect  of  the  Duties  Drawback 
Law  has  been  to  transfer  the  purchase  of  sugar,  tea,  and  many  other 
goods  to  New  York,  from  whence  nearly  all  of  those  articles  for  the  supply 
of  Upper  Canada  are  now  imported.  Should  such  a  change  in  the 
export  of  Canadian  produce  take  place,  it  will  not  only  injure  the 
Canadian  canals  and  forwarding  trade,  but  also  the  shipping  interest 
engaged  in  carrying  these  articles  from  Montreal.  A  change  in  the 
corn  laws,  which  would  diminish  the  price  the  Canadian  farmers  can 
now  obtain,  would  greatly  affect  the  consumption  of  British  manu- 
factures in  the  province,  which  must  depend  on  the  means  of  the 
farmers  to  pay  for  them.  An  increased  demand  and  consumption  has 
been  very  perceptible  for  the  last  two  years,  and  is  mainly  attributable 
to  the  flourishing  condition  of  the  agricultural  population  of  Upper 
Canada.  Even  if  a  relaxation  of  the  system  of  protection  to  the 
Colonies  is  to  be  adopted,  it  is  of  infinite  consequence  that  it  should 
not  be  sudden.  The  ruin  that  such  a  proceeding  would  cause  is  incal- 
culable. The  political  consequences  to  the  Government  of  the 
Colony  involved  in  the  foregoing  suggestions  are  sufi&ciently  obvious, 
as  also  must  be  those  arising  from  the  trade  of  Upper  Canada  being, 
as  it  were,  transferred  from  Montreal  to  New  York. 

I  do  not  wish  now  to  urge  this  matter  further.  I  desire  but  to 
show  you  what  effect  this  corn  law  will  have  upon  the  single 
province  of  Canada.  I  have  stated  the  case  of  Canada  and  the 
com  laws,  and  having  shown  the  effect  which  this  measure 
will  have  upon  the  individual  province  of  Canada,  I  will  not 
trespass  upon  your  lordships'  attention  by  entering  into 
details  with  respect  to  other  colonies  or  the  effects  which  a 
similar  course  may  have  upon  them.  But  there  is  one  other 
point  I  must  refer  to. 

When  we  are  told  it  is  essential  for  the  advantage  of  the 
manufacturers  of  this  country  that  free  trade  should  be  estab- 
hshed,  and  that  no  advantage  should  be  derived  by  the  colonies, 
I  presume  that  if  you  deprive  the  colonies  of  all  the  protection 
they  now  enjoy,  you  intend  to  repeal  that  Act  of  Parhament 
which  compels  the  colonies  to  impose  a  differential  duty  in 
favour  of  your  produce.  I  can  conceive  no  grosser  injustice 
than  your  refusal  to  do  that.  Protection  is  mutual,  free  trade 
must  be  mutual  also.  One-third,  and  more  than  one-third 
of  your  manufactures  goes  to  the  colonies.  Hear  now  what 
is  the  language  of  Mr.  Greg,  a  distinguished  member  of  the 


DERBY  89 

Anti-Com-Law  League,  as  to  these  markets — the  neutral 
markets — in  which  you  are  exposed  to  competition — 

"  At  present,"  says  Mr.  Greg,  "  we  are  undersold  by  foreigners 
in  neutral  markets  in  aU  the  staple  articles  of  Enghsh  manu- 
facture. In  the  articles  of  cotton,  hosiery,  and  cutlery,  which 
amount  altogether  to  three-fourths  of  our  exports,  this  is 
notoriously  the  case.  In  cotton  fabrics  the  Swiss  undersell 
us  in  several  markets.  In  cutlery,  Sheffield  is  immensely 
undersold  by  Alsace,  and  our  exports  are  yearly  decreasing. 
In  hosiery  the  case  is  still  worse.  Saxony  is  driving  us,  not 
only  out  of  the  foreign  markets,  but  out  of  our  own.  In  hosiery 
we  used  to  supply  three-fourths  of  the  American  demand. 
We  now  scarcely  supply  any.  Saxon  hosiery,  after  paying 
a  debt  of  20  per  cent.,  is  sold  in  London  25  to  30  per  cent, 
cheaper  than  the  produce  of  the  Leicester  and  Nottingham 
looms.  In  Leicester  the  stocking  frames  have  diminished 
from  16,000  in  1815,  to  14,000  in  1840  ;  whilst  in  Saxony  in 
the  same  time  they  have  increased  from  4,590  to  25,000.  How 
far,"  says  Mr.  Greg,  "  with  cheaper  food,  no  taxes  on  the  raw 
material  and  no  duties  but  for  the  sake  of  revenue,  we  might 
yet  recover  our  lost  superiority  is  a  matter  for  grave  considera- 
tion. I  do  not  believe  we  could  either  in  woollens  or  hosiery, 
and  even  in  cutlery  or  the  cotton  trade  I  think  it  very 
doubtful.  The  machinery  of  foreign  nations  even  now  is  not 
inferior  to  our  own  and  is  daily  and  rapidly  improving,  and 
the  capital  is  fast  accumulating,  and  the  yearly  interest  of  it 
approximating  to  our  own  rate.  In  the  only  remaining  cost 
of  production,  that  is  the  wages  of  labour,  foreign  nations  have 
a  decided  advantage,  and  although  a  free  trade  in  provisions, 
might  do  something,  by  lowering  them  here  and  raising  them 
abroad,  I  doubt  if  it  ever  could  be  entirely  recovered ;  yet 
better  education,  more  sober  habits,  more  frugality  and  general 
forethought,  together  with  cheaper  food,  will,  no  doubt,  enable 
our  people  to  Uve  in  much  greater  comfort  than  at  present 
upon  considerably  smaller  earnings." 

This,  then,  is  the  language  of  Mr.  Greg,  one  of  the  leaders 
of  the  Anti-Com-Law  League  ;  and  he,  on  the  part  of  the 
manufacturers,  frankly  intimates  that  the  last  chance  for  the 
success  of  what  is  called  free  trade  resolves  itself  into  a  reduction 
of  wages  and  cheapness  of  food.  It  is  the  last  desperate 
experiment ;  and  when  you  are  called  upon  to  give  up  markets 


90  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

which,  because  they  are  protected,  take  one-third  of  your 
manufacture  ;  when  you  are  called  upon  to  do  this,  to  damage 
the  home  market,  the  proportion  of  which  I  take  to  be  to  the 
whole  foreign  markets  at  least  as  four  to  one,  and  this  upon 
the  chance  of  finding  markets  abroad,  I  reaUy  must  say  that 
the  force  of  folly  can  no  further  go.  I  trust  that  you,  my 
lords,  will  not  be  led  away  by  any  fanciful  delusions  upon 
this  subject.  I  trust  that  you  will  not,  in  yielding  to  these 
delusions,  consent  to  sacrifice  the  home  producer. 

I  am  sensible,  though  I  have  spoken  at  great  length,  how 
feebly  and  imperfectly  I  have  performed  the  duty  I  desired 
to  discharge.  I  know  that  I  must  have  wearied  your  lordships. 
I  know  that  I  must  indifferently  have  fulfilled  my  task,  but 
I  do  hope  that  your  lordships  will  give  me  credit  for  having 
kept  closely  to  the  subject ;  and  I  hope,  further,  that  I  have 
redeemed  the  pledge  that  I  gave  at  the  outset — that  in  no 
observation  that  I  might  make,  if  I  could  possibly  avoid  it, 
would  I  make  use  of  an  expression  calculated  to  wound  the 
feelings  of  anyone.  But  before  I  sit  down,  permit  me  to 
address  a  few  words  to  those  among  your  lordships,  and  I 
beheve  there  are  many,  who  go  along  with  me  in  the  arguments 
I  have  employed,  and  who  regard  with  the  same  alarm  as  I  do 
this  measure,  and  yet  who,  for  various  reasons,  are  prepared 
to  assent  to  the  second  reading.  I  can  conceive  various 
motives  which  may  impel  high-minded  and  honourable  men 
to  take  such  a  course.  I  know  there  may  be  those  who  feel 
ready  to  yield  to  the  authority  of  the  House  of  Commons  ; 
I  entertain  great  respect  for  the  authority  of  that  House,  of 
which  I  was  a  member  twenty-two  years.  But  where  on  this 
subject  am  I  to  discover  its  authority,  and  how  to  collect  its 
opinions  ?  I  can  but  discover  them  in  its  recorded  votes. 
Am  I  to  be  bound  by  its  votes  of  1846,  of  1844,  or  of  1842  ? 
When  I  find  that  a  measure  of  1842  was  rejected  by  a  majority 
of  213,  and  another  measure  to  the  same  effect  in  the  same 
year,  rejected  by  a  majority  of  114  ;  when  I  find  it  rejected 
by  a  majority  of  256  in  1843,  and  again  by  a  majority  of  209 
in  1844,  and  when  I  find  a  motion  for  the  repeal  of  the  com 
laws  rejected  by  a  majority  of  132  in  June,  1845,  and  when  I 
find  that  same  measure  not  negatived  by  a  majority  of  132, 
but  affirmed  by  a  majority  of  98  by  the  same  men  and  in  the 
same  House,  I  say  this  sudden  conversion  must  tend  to  diminish 


DERBY  91 

the  value  I  attach  to  the  authority  of  the  last  vote  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  I  respect  the  judgment  and  decision  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  but  not  because  it  is  a  decision  of  a  majority 
of  gentlemen  more  or  less  well  educated  and  enhghtened.  I 
respect  their  decision  because  it  is  the  decision  of  the  representa- 
tives of  pubHc  opinion  in  this  country ;  and  if  I  am  to  take 
the  decision  of  the  House  of  Commons,  I  must,  if  I  am  to  be 
bound  by  either  decision,  take  that  decision  of  the  collected 
representation  in  1842,  rather  than  that  of  the  collected 
representation  in  1846,  of  the  deliberate  judgment  and  opinion 
of  the  people  of  this  country.  There  are  those  who  disapprove 
of  this  decision,  but  who,  from  a  personal  feeling  of  attachment 
to  the  Government,  are  prepared  to  vote  with  them.  I  sympa- 
thise with  that  feeling,  but  I  cannot  assent  in  justice  to  their 
course.  There  are  too  great  interests  at  stake  in  this  question 
to  be  complimented  away  out  of  deference  to  any  minister. 
Depend  upon  it,  the  public  interests  can  never  be  benefited 
by  the  sacrifice  of  your  own  dehberate  judgment,  by  turning 
round  upon  your  own  principles  for  the  purpose  of  saving 
an  Administration.  My  conviction  is,  that  if  you  make 
the  sacrifice  it  will  be  made  in  vain,  for  there  never  was  a 
Government  which  permanently  maintained  office,  much 
less  power,  when  it  rested  on  the  somewhat  contemptuous 
sufferance  of  its  opponents,  joined  to  the  ill-concealed 
disgust,  and  the  lukewarm  and  half-ashamed  support  of  its 
adherents. 

There  may  be  those,  my  lords,  who  hope,  by  giving  their 
consent  to  this  measure,  to  put  an  end  to  agitation,  and  to  give 
satisfaction  to  the  members  of  the  Anti-Corn-Law  League. 
When,  my  lords,  was  an  organised  agitation  put  down  by 
concessions  extorted  from  its  opponents  ?  Depend  upon  it, 
that  when  this  body  shall  have  once  tasted  the  cup  of  political 
power,  the  draught  will  be  too  sweet  to  induce  them  to 
rehnquish  it.  I  agree  with  my  noble  friend,  that  this  is  only 
one  of  the  measures  which  one  after  another  will  be  the  object 
of  the  Anti-Com-Law  League  Why,  my  lords,  there  is  no 
secret  made  of  it  I  do  not  say  that  every  member  of  the 
Anti-Com-Law  League  enters  fully  into  those  opinions ;  for 
I  beheve  that  there  are  many  excellent  men  who  have  joined 
that  body  with  none  but  commercial  objects,  who  sincerely 
beheve  that  free  trade  will  be  a  benefit  to  the  country  and  to 


92  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

themselves,  and  who  would  withdraw  if  there  were  any  attempt 
to  carry  those  objects  further  But,  recollect,  that  agitation 
having  succeeded  in  one  object  is  not  a  thing  easy  to  put  down. 
Here  is  the  language  used  by  one  of  the  free  traders  at  a  meeting 
held  in  this  city,  at  which  Mr.  Lawrence  He5rworth  was  in 
the  chair — ' 

"  They  were  told  of  the  wonders  that  resulted  from  public 
opinion,  that  it  was  performing  something  like  miracles, 
converting  prime  ministers  to  right  principles ;  but  they 
must  have  something  more  than  free  trade  in  corn,  fresh  meat, 
and  vegetables.  The  discussions  which  had  taken  place  had 
enhghtened  the  public,  and  they  would  begin  to  ask — Why 
continue  a  system  of  levying  taxes  by  which  the  trade  of  the 
coimtry  is  decreased  and  the  comforts  of  the  people  lessened  ? 
Men  would  begin  to  ask  whether  it  would  not  be  better  to 
have  one  tax — a  tax  on  property — to  carry  on  the  government 
of  the  country.  Whether  it  would  not  be  better  to  abolish 
the  Custom-house  system,  to  do  away  with  the  preventive 
force  altogether,  and  to  put  up  a  board  on  the  sea-coast  with 
these  words,  '  Honest  traders  of  all  nations  may  land  their 
stuff  here.  No  taxes.  No  duties.'  "  In  further  allusion  to 
the  great  principles  of  free  trade,  he  said  "  they  had  hved  to  see 
their  triumph  in  the  most  extraordinary  wa}^  but  he  would 
not  have  the  friends  of  free  trade  to  relax  in  their  endeavours. 
They  must  remember  the  House  of  Lords  yet  lived.  It  was 
still  the  stronghold  of  the  aristocracy.  They  were  struggling 
now  for  something  more  than  the  maintenance  of  the  present 
commercial  policy.  They  had  a  sure  conviction  that  free  trade 
would  not  only  give  the  people  more  comfort  but  more  inde- 
pendence, and  this  was  the  thing  they  feared.  Commercial 
and  trading  liberty  would  promote  intelligence  and  give  an 
increased  impulse  to  those  great  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty  on  which  this  country  was  placing  its  affections.  After 
the  settlement  of  the  free  trade  question,  the  people  would 
then  have  more  time  to  agitate  for  the  great  principle  of 
imiversal  suffrage.  If  it  is  good  (said  he)  for  commerce  to 
be  free,  it  is  good  for  man  to  be  free.  Gradually  human  hfe 
was  becoming  of  more  importance — the  very  gallows  was 
becoming  odious.  Everything  which  weakened  the  aristocracy 
and  increased  the  intelligence  of  the  people  must  be  in  favour 
of  this  noble  and  Christian  principle." 


DERBY  93 

And  I  beg  the  attention  of  the  right  reverend  bench  to  this 
passage — 

"  Could  they  have  free  trade  in  commerce  without  free 
trade  in  religion  ;  or  could,  under  such  a  system,  ecclesiastical 
despotism  continue  to  blight  our  country  ?  The  time  was  not 
far  distant  when  Catholics  and  Dissenters  would  ask,  '  Why 
shall  the  Church  of  Christ  continue  to  be  bandaged  by  the 
trammels  of  the  State  ?  Why  shall  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel 
be  compelled  to  wear  the  State's  hvery  ?  '  Freedom  in 
rehgion,  as  displayed  in  the  entire  separation  of  Church  and 
State,  will  be  one  of  the  glorious  effects  of  free  trade." 

Lastly,  my  lords,  there  is  another  motive  which  is  most 
likely  to  operate  with  high-minded  men  ;  it  is  an  unworthy 
fear  and  suspicion  that  they  are  acting  from  interested  or 
dishonourable  motives.  My  lords,  if  I  were  speaking  to  an 
ordinary  assembly,  I  might  warn  them  of  the  danger  of  jdelding 
to  such  motives  ;  but,  speaking  to  the  assembly  which  I  have 
the  honour  to  address,  I  feel  that  I  should  rather  warn  you 
against  a  bias  in  the  opposite  direction,  against  assenting  to  a 
measure  injurious  both  to  the  public  and  to  your  own  interests, 
lest  you  should  be  unjustly  suspected  of  interested  motives. 
My  lords,  you  have  no  right  to  yield  to  such  considerations. 
You  are  the  trustees  for  far  more  than  your  personal  interests  ; 
you  are  the  trustees  for  your  country,  you  are  the  trustees  for 
posterity,  you  are  the  trustees  for  the  constitution  of  the 
empire.  My  lords,  you,  each  and  all  of  you,  hve  amongst 
your  neighbours,  by  whom  you  are  looked  up  to  as  the  guides 
for  their  pohtical  opinions  ;  from  you  your  neighbours  take 
the  colour  of  their  opinions  and  their  views  ;  to  you  they  look, 
to  your  opinion  a  respectful  deference  is  paid,  and  it  is  you 
who  have  encouraged  and  promulgated  the  opinion  that  for 
the  great  interests  of  the  country  agricultural  protection  is 
essential.  With  what  feeling,  my  lords,  with  what  face,  having 
voted  for  the  destruction  of  all  protection  in  agriculture,  can 
you  show  yourself  in  the  midst  of  those  neighbours  who  have 
hitherto  regarded  you  with  respect,  and  whose  principles  and 
opinions  you  have  heretofore  influenced  ?  They  will  charge 
you,  and  charge  you  justly,  as  you  now  charge  the  Government, 
with  having  misled  and  betrayed  those  who  have  placed 
their  confidence  in  you.  Therefore,  my  lords,  if  against  your 
own   dehberate  opinions  you  consent  to  pass  this  measure  be 


94  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

prepared  to  abdicate  the  hitherto  high  place  you  have  held 
in  the  Constitution  ;  if  you  sacrifice  your  own  opinions  to  the 
intimidation  of  faction,  the  allurements  of  power,  or  the  dicta- 
tion of  any  minister  on  earth,  be  prepared  hereafter  to  be 
looked  upon  as  a  subordinate  branch  of  the  Constitution,  to 
be  looked  upon  only  as  the  registrars  of  the  edicts  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  and  as  the  pUant  followers  of  the  Minister  of 
the  day. 

My  lords,  if  I  know  anything  of  the  constitutional  value 
of  this  house,  it  is  to  interpose  a  salutary  obstacle  to  rash 
and  inconsiderate  legislation  ;  it  is  to  protect  the  people  from 
the  consequences  of  their  own  imprudence.  It  never  has 
been  the  course  of  this  house  to  resist  a  continued  and  delibe- 
rately formed  public  opinion  ;  your  lordships  always  have 
bowed,  and  always  will  bow  to  the  expression  of  such  an 
opinion  ;  but  it  is  yours  to  check  hasty  legislation,  leading  to 
irreparable  evils  ;  and  it  is  yours — though  the  Constitution 
can  hardly  have  been  deemed  to  have  provided  for  such  a 
contingency — to  protect  the  people,  not  against  their  own 
hasty  judgments,  but  against  the  treachery  of  those  whom 
they  have  chosen  to  be  their  representatives. 

My  lords,  if,  acting  on  your  own  deUberate  and  impartial 
opinion,  scorning  the  degrading  suspicion  of  being  actuated 
by  unworthy  motives,  you  follow  the  course  which  in  your 
conscience  you  beheve  to  be  for  the  good  of  the  country,  you 
may  fail  in  effecting  your  purpose,  but  you  will  not  be  con- 
temned ;  overborne  by  numbers  you  may  be,  but  not  degraded. 
You  may  not  succeed  in  averting  the  threatened  evil,  but  you 
will  secure  the  approbation  of  your  friends  and  compel  the 
respect  of  your  opponents.  And  if,  by  the  blessing  of  God, 
your  decision  on  this  great  question  shall  arrest  the  progress 
of  this  hasty  and  inconsiderate  measure  ;  if  you  shall  thus  give 
time  for  the  intelligence  of  the  country  to  act  upon  the  pubhc 
mind ;  if,  happily,  you  shall  succeed  in  leading  back  the  country 
to  a  wiser  course,  and  in  adopting  the  too  much  despised  wisdom 
of  your  ancestors,  then  will  you  justly  be  a  "  proud  aristocracy  " ; 
proud  of  having  faithfully  discharged  the  duty  vested  in  you 
by  the  Constitution  ;  proud  of  having  withstood  ahke  the 
seductions  of  power  and  the  threats  of  popular  clamour  ; 
proud  of  having  succeeded  in  saving  your  country  from  this 
great  delusion,  tliis  hazardous  and  fearful  experiment.     Your 


DERBY  95 

best  reward,  my  lords,  will  be  the  approval  of  your  own 
consciences ;  but  doubt  not  but  that  you  will  have  a  further 
reward  in  the  approbation  of  a  grateful  and  admiring  nation, 
to  which  you  will  have  given  just  cause  to  exclaim — ^Thank 
God,  we  have  a  House  of  Lords  ! 


LORD   BEACONSFIELD 

Disraeli's  reply  to  the  attacks  on  his  second  or  supplementary 
Budget  of  1852  is  one  of  his  most  effective  and  brilliant  per- 
formances. It  is  also  interesting  as  the  commencement  of  the 
long  duel  between  him  and  Mr.  Gladstone,  for  Mr.  Gladstone 
replied  to  it  on  the  spot.  As  a  specimen  of  sarcasm,  invective, 
defence  in  the  form  of  attack,  and  inimitably  skilful  turning 
of  the  tables  upon  his  antagonists,  it  was  never  surpassed,  if 
indeed  it  was  ever  equalled,  in  the  whole  of  Disraeh's  career. 
Disraeli  had  come  into  office  for  the  first  time  with  Lord  Derby 
early  in  the  year  1852,  and  the  General  Election  in  the  summer, 
though  unfavourable  to  the  Government,  had  not  been  decisive. 
The  struggle  which  determined  the  fate  of  the  Ministry 
came  on  the  financial  arrangements  left  incomplete  at  the 
Dissolution,  and  this  speech  was  the  last  Ministerial  word. 

Reply  in  Defence  of  his  Budget 
leth  of  December,  1852 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  : — Sir,  after  four 
nights  of  criticism,  conducted  by  some  of  the  most  considerable 
reputations  in  this  House,  on  the  financial  propositions  that 
I  have  laid  on  the  table  of  the  Committee,  I  now  rise  to  vindicate 
those  propositions.  If  in  the  observations,  which  I  will 
endeavour  to  condense  as  much  as  I  can,  I  omit  noticing  any 
of  the  objections  which  have  been  urged  against  those  pro- 
positions, I  hope  the  Committee  will  ascribe  that  negligence 
to  inadvertence  and  not  to  design.  Having  listened  with 
the  respect  and  attention  naturally  due  to  such  words  from 
such  lips,  I  can  conscientiously  say  that  I  have  heard  nothing 
that  in  my  opinion  has  successfully  impugned  the  poHcy  which, 
as  the  organ  of  the  Government,  I  have  recommended  ;  and 
I  am  prepared  to  meet  the  objections  which  have  been  urged, 
and  to  show  to  the  Committee  that  they  are  unfoimded  and 
illusory.     When  with  the  great  indulgence  of  the  House  on 

96 


BEACONSFIELD  97 

Friday  week,  I  attempted  to  make  a  general  exposition  of  the 
financial  policy  of  the  Government  ;  when,  exhausting,  I  am 
conscious,  the  patience  of  the  House,  as  well  as  myself,  I 
endeavoured  in  the  fulfilment  of  my  duty  to  give — I  will  not 
call  them  estimates — but  to  give  such  information  as  was 
necessary  as  to  the  effect  of  the  alterations  that  we  proposed 
on  the  revenue  of  the  next  year  and  the  year  immediately 
following — I  did  not  then  attempt  to  substantiate  that  state- 
ment by  details.  I  felt  that  at  that  moment  the  House  was 
too  exhausted  to  listen  to  those  details  ;  I  felt  that  the  general 
statement  would  undergo  the  scrutiny  of  persons  competent 
to  invalidate  its  accuracy  if  inaccuracy  could  be  proved  to 
exist ;  and  I  felt  I  should  have  the  opportunity,  with  per- 
mission of  the  House,  of  answering  such  criticisms  in  due  time. 
I  will  now,  therefore,  in  the  first  place,  address  myself  to  the 
statement  which  I  made  generally  as  to  the  effect  of  these 
alterations  on  the  revenue  of  the  two  years  under  discussion  ; 
and  I  will  apply  myself,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  two  impor- 
tant arraignments  of  the  policy  which  we  recommend,  made 
principally  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  Member  for 
Hahfax  (Sir  Charles  Wood).  And,  first,  I  will  address  myself 
to  that  sum  of  £400,000,  which,  under  the  name  of  repayments, 
I  recommend  to  the  Committee  to  adopt  and  to  sanction  as  part 
of  the  ways  and  means  of  the  impending  year.  That  proposed 
course  was  at  once  denounced  by  the  Member  for  the  University 
of  Oxford  (Mr.  Gladstone),  and  afterwards  assailed  in  language 
and  a  tone  somewhat  unusual — certainly  not  very  Parhament- 
ary — by  the  right  honourable  Member  for  Hahfax  ;  for  instead 
of  addressing  his  observations  to  you,  Sir,  he  addressed,  through- 
out his  speech,  his  observations  to  myself.  On  a  subsequent 
occasion  another  right  honourable  gentleman — a  great  authority 
in  this  House  (Sir  James  Graham) — entered  amply,  and  with  the 
advantage  which  days  of  meditation  on  the  subject  gave  him, 
into  the  same  topic,  enlarging  upon  it  with  a  minuteness  which 
was  not  observed  in  the  attack  of  the  Member  for  the  University 
of  Oxford,  and  which  was  scorned  by  the  Member  for  Halifax. 
These  three  great  authorities  have  combined  to  influence 
the  opinion  of  the  Committee  on  the  subject.  I  am  not  sure 
whether  a  third  Ex-Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  ^  has  touched 

1  Mr.  Goulburn.  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  under  Sir  Robert  Peel. 

7~(2i7i) 


98  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

on  it,  for,  unfortunately,  I  was  absent  from  the  House  during 
part  of  the  time  he  was  addressing  the  Committee — probably, 
however,  he  did  not  spare  me  any  more  than  his  right  honour- 
able friends  have  done.  It  is  for  me  now  to  show — if  the 
Committee  will,  as  I  have  no  doubt,  after  these  attacks,  it  will, 
give  me  its  kind  and  patient  attention — ^that  the  propositions 
I  made  bear  a  very  different  character  and  complexion  from 
those  which  these  authorities  have  so  strenuously  sought  to 
induce  the  Conmiittee  to  believe.  There  are  two  points  in 
this  subject  before  the  Committee  :  first,  was  I  justified  in 
reconmiending  that  the  establishment  in  question  should  be 
abolished  ?  Secondly,  if  I  was  justified  in  that  recommenda- 
tion, was  I  justified  in  also  recommending  that  the  repa3nnents 
should  take  their  place  in  the  ways  and  means.  These  are  the 
two  issues  in  this  matter  before  the  Committee  ;  I  trust  I  have 
stated  them  fairly.  I  must  advert  briefly  to  the  origin  of  this 
department  of  the  Public  Works  Loan  Commission,  to  which, 
on  the  former  occasion,  I  alluded  cursorily.  I  observed  then 
that  this  department  had  its  origin  in  circumstances  exactly 
the  reverse  of  those  under  which  it  now  exists,  and  that  it  was 
occasioned  by  causes  which  now  no  longer  operate.  At  the 
peace,  there  being  surplus  population  and  deficient  capital,  the 
labour  market  throughout  the  country  being  suddenly  dis- 
turbed, and  unexpected  bands  let  loose  on  society,  the  amount 
of  unemployed  labour  being  increased  and  aggravated  by  a 
body  of  200,000  seamen  and  soldiers  all  at  once  disbanded, 
the  Government  of  that  day  felt  it  necessary  to  take  some 
artificial  means  of  employing  that  surplus  labour  in  a  state  of 
society  where  capital  was  deficient. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  enter  into  any  discussion  as  to 
the  policy  or  impolicy  of  such  a  proceeding.  Probably  mere 
pohtical  economists  might  not  approve  of  it — probably  states- 
men under  circumstances  so  urgent,  though  they  might  not 
have  abstractedly  approved  of  it,  might  have  been  forced  to 
have  recourse  to  such  a  measure.  However  this  may  be,  a 
department  was  established  which,  by  the  credit  of  Exchequer 
BiUs  issued  by  the  State,  raised  money,  and  employed  that 
money  in  what  is  called  "  public  works."  That  system  went 
on  for,  I  think,  nearly  fifteen  years.  Nearly  ,^3,000,000  of 
Exchequer  Bills  had  been  issued,  and  those  which  had  been 
so  issued  for  that  purpose  were  not  of  so  favourite  a  character 


N 


BEACONSFIELD  99 

in  the  market  as  the  usual  Supply  Exchequer  Bills,  and  it  was 
found  necessary  or  convenient  to  terminate  the  issue.  In 
the  year  1842,  the  point  from  which  we  depart,  the  account  was 
taken  of  that  fund.  It  appeared  at  that  time  that  in  round 
numbers  the  sum  of  £3,000,000  had  been  raised  by  Exchequer 
Bills  thus  issued  ;  that  of  that  sum  £2,000,000  had  been  paid 
off,  and  that  £1,046,000  remained  at  that  time  unsettled,  if 
I  may  use  the  expression,  and  to  close  the  transaction  they 
were  funded.  From  that  period,  by  Act  of  Parliament  it  was 
arranged  that,  instead  of  loans  raised  on  Exchequer  BiUs,  the 
same  Commissioners  for  the  same  purpose  should  receive  a  sum 
of  money  to  the  amount  of  £360,000  a  year  from  the  Consoli- 
dated Fund.  The  sum  which  we  have  actually  to  deal  with 
is  £300,000  per  annum,  for  by  a  subsequent  arrangement 
£60,000,  a  portion  of  that  sum,  was  transferred  to  the  use  of 
Ireland  only  for  public  works,  and  with  that  we  do  not  propose 
to   deal. 

Well  now.  Sir,  the  Member  for  CarUsle  (Sir  James  Graham) 
has  dilated  in  almost  moving  terms  upon  the  benefit  of  the 
loan  fund,  especially  to  the  country  gentlemen.  He  has 
eulogised  its  good  administration  by  the  unpaid  Commissioners, 
whose  respectable  and  respected  names  he  read  to  the  Com- 
mittee ;  nor  should  he  have  forgotten — ^though  he  omitted  it, 
I  am  sure,  only  from  inadvertence — to  have  recorded,  also, 
the  names  of  the  respected  officers  connected  with  that  fund, 
whose  performance  of  their  duties  should  not,  I  think,  be 
overlooked  at  this  moment,  whatever  our  opinion  may  be  upon 
other  subjects.  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  so  far  as  those 
unpaid  Commissioners  and  those  sedulous  officials  are  con- 
cerned, there  are  few  blots  in  the  administration  of  that  fund, 
during  a  long  period,  by  them.  On  the  contrary,  I  think 
I  may  say  that  they  have  conducted  themselves  with  unim- 
peachable assiduity  and  care.  Sir,  the  right  honourable  gen- 
tleman passing  on,  has  dilated  upon  the  importance  of  this  fund, 
especially  to  the  country  gentlemen.  With  this  fund,  according 
to  him,  bridges  have  been  erected,  union  workhouses  built, 
lunatic  asylums  and  public  gaols  have  risen. 
Sir  J.  Graham  :  I  said  "  workhouses  enlarged,"  not "  built." 
Well,  enlarged  ;  the  right  honourable  gentleman  may  have 
the  benefit  of  the  correction.  Certainly  he  talked  of  this  fund 
circulating  to  the  constant  advantage  of  the  landed  interest, 


100  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

and  he  asked,  "  If  that  assistance  is  withdrawn,  what  are  they 
to  do  ?  "  "  Why  has  he  touched  it  ?  "  said  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  with  indignation  ;  "  not  a  single  shilling  has  been 
lost ;    why  has  he  touched  it  ?  " 

Now,  Sir,  of  funds  of  this  nature  there  is  one  general  observa- 
tion to  make,  which  before  we  enter  into  consideration  of  its 
particular  management  should  not  be  omitted.  This  fund 
proposed  to  lend  money  at  a  higher  rate  of  interest  than  the 
rate  prevailing  in  what  is  called  "  the  Money  Market."  Accord- 
ing to  the  Member  for  Hahfax,  that  was  in  order  that  the 
Money  Market  should  not  be  disturbed.  The  rules  of  the  Loan 
Fund  were  these  :  that  for  all  undertakings  in  which  profit 
was  concerned,  5  per  cent,  was  to  be  charged  ;  and  for  all 
undertakings  in  which  profit  was  not  concerned  4  per  cent, 
only  was  to  be  charged.  The  first  and  natural  consequence 
of  any  department  lending  money  at  a  higher  rate  of  interest 
than  the  natural  rate  of  the  Money  Market  is,  that  first-rate 
securities  will  not  pay  5  per  cent.,  or  4  per  cent,  if  they  can  get 
their  money  at  3^  per  cent.  ;  and  if  your  funds  are  employed, 
the  chance  is  that  your  security  is  second-rate.  Well,  Sir, 
I  have  here  ample  information  as  to  the  manner  in  which  those 
funds  were  employed  as  regards  the  country  gentlemen,  but 
I  have  no  wish  to  enter  into  any  details  to  show  that  in  many 
instances  those  advances  need  not  or  ought  not  to  have  been 
made.  At  this  moment  the  country  gentlemen  are  not  applying 
for  any  great  amount  of  that  fund,  for  the  reason  which  my 
right  honourable  friend  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Home 
Department  (Mr.  Walpole)  adverted  to  the  other  evening — 
namely,  that  they  cannot  afford  to  pay  so  high  a  rate  of  interest 
for  the  loan  which  is  afforded  them.  But,  Sir,  the  objection  to 
this  department  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  circumstances  on  the 
surface,  to  which  the  Member  for  Carhsle  has  adverted,  and 
to  which  he  has  confined  himself.  The  question  is  one  of  a 
much  deeper  character  ;  and  now  perhaps  the  Committee 
will  permit  me  to  inform  them  under  what  circumstances  and 
by  what  reason  my  attention  was  drawn  to  this  Loan  Fund. 

Sir,  I  found  in  revising  the  public  accounts  of  the  country 
a  department,  and  a  department  of  no  great  mark,  with  a  very 
large  balance  of  the  public  money  unemployed,  amounting, 
when  it  first  attracted  my  attention — and,  I  believe,  at  this 
moment — to  upwards  of  £380,000  lying  perfectly  idle.     It  is 


BEACONSFIELD  101 

no  doubt  a  rule,  which  I  should  think  no  gentleman  opposite 
will  impugn,  that  large  balances  of  the  pubUc  money  lying  idle 
is  a  circumstance  which  ought  not  to  be  encouraged,  and 
which  ought  to  be  inquired  into.  But  I  found  that  with  that 
large  amount  of  balance  there  was  a  law  in  existence  that 
peremptorily  every  quarter  of  a  year  increased  it  by  the  sum 
of  £90,000,  less  the  amount  paid  to  Ireland,  and  it  became, 
therefore,  my  duty  to  inquire  why  so  large  a  balance  remained 
unproductive,  what  was  the  object  of  that  balance,  what 
had  been  effected  by  that  fund,  and  what  might  be  the  con- 
sequences of  its  remaining  in  its  present  state  ?  The  right 
honourable  baronet  said  in  a  manner  which  he  did  not  in  any 
way  qualify — which,  in  fact,  was  almost  the  basis  of  his  appeal, 
if  not  his  argument — that  not  a  single  shilling  had  been  lost ; 
that  under  the  innocent  management  of  those  respected  names 
which  he  appealed  to,  and  those  worthy  officials  whose  services 
I  have  presumed  to  notice,  the  simple  country  gentlemen  have 
been  benefited  ;  that  that  recruiting  fund  had  raised  our 
gaols,  and  enlarged  our  unions,  and,  after  thirty  or  forty  years' 
experience,  not  a  single  shilling,  mind  you,  has  been  lost.  "  Why 
does  he  touch  it  ?  "  Now,  I  must  inform  the  Committee  that 
the  right  honourable  gentleman,  in  the  minute  statement  which 
he  gave  with  respect  to  this  department,  omitted  aU  the  most 
important  facts. 

I  doubt  not,  Sir,  that  if  a  fund  had  been  entrusted  only  to 
respectable  unpaid  Commissioners  of  such  habits  of  hfe  as  were 
referred  to  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  devoted  only  to 
the  worthy  and  laudable  purposes  which  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  described  as  the  sole  object  of  its  investment — I 
doubt  not  that,  though  there  might  have  been  an  occasional  job 
unconsciously  perpetrated,  and  an  occasional  bad  security 
inadvertently  taken,  yet  no  very  serious  consequences  would 
have  accrued.  But,  Sir,  with  so  convenient  a  fund  at 
their  disposal,  there  was  another  party  to  interfere  beside  the 
respectable  Commissioners,  and  the  fund  has  been  employed  for 
purposes  very  different  from  those  of  my  honourable  friends 
near  me,  the  country  gentlemen  of  England.  With  these  large 
balances  and  funds  another  influence  has  interfered,  very  briefly 
alluded  to  by  one  of  those  right  honourable  gentlemen  who  have 
spoken  on  the  subject.  "  We  all  know  how  convenient  it  may 
be  to  the  Minister,"  said  the  right  honourable  gentleman  (Sir  C. 


102  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Wood),  "  to  have  at  a  particular  moment  such  a  fund  at  his 
command  "  ;  and  I  will  show  the  Committee  how  convenient  it 
has  been  to  the  Minister  to  have  such  a  fund  at  his  command, 
and  I  will  show  to  the  Committee  what  flagrant  misappro- 
priation there  has  been  of  the  public  funds  of  this  country, 
and  how  vast  an  amount  has  been  squandered  away,  virtually 
without  the  cognisance  and  consent  of  Parliament,  and  entirely 
by  the  machinery  of  this  Public  Works  Loan  Fund.  Now,  Sir, 
"  it  is  excessively  convenient,"  says  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man. There  are  moments  when  even  I,  with  my  brief  experience 
of  office,  which  seems  so  much  envied — when,  he  says,  even 
I  may  have  experienced  the  conveniences  of  such  a  fund. 
Well,  I  don't  know  what  I  may  come  to  ;  but  certainly  during 
the  short  period  I  have  had  the  honour  of  presiding  over  the 
Exchequer,  I  had  not  the  slightest  idea  that  I  was  to  avail 
myself  of  such  an  opportunity.  This,  now,  is  the  way  my 
predecessors  have  availed  themselves  of  such  opportunities. 
I  shall  then  put  the  question  simply  to  the  Committee,  whether 
they  think  that  such  a  department  ought  to  be  maintained  for 
the  reasons  urged  by  the  right  honourable  Member  for  Carlisle, 
or  whether  I  have  taken  a  judicious  course  in  attempting  to 
terminate  its  existence.  That  is  what  I  shall  leave  to  the 
decision  of  the  Committee. 

Now,  Sir,  let  me  explain  how  the  Minister  of  the  day — I  make 
no  charge  on  any  Minister  of  any  period  :  my  observations  are 
general — how  the  Minister  of  the  day  has  availed  himself  of 
the  pubUc  funds,  virtually,  as  I  shall  show  you,  without  the 
cognisance  of  Parhament,  and  how  vast  sums  have  been 
squandered  without  even  the  honourable  Member  for  Montrose 
(Mr.  Hume),  I  beheve,  being  aware  of  it.  Now,  I  take  one 
among  many  illustrative  instances.  I  take  the  instance  of  the 
Thames  Tunnel.  There  was  a  body  of  ingenious  men  who 
resolved  to  make  a  tunnel  under  the  Thames.  Well,  it  was  a  great 
triumph  of  scientific  enterprise,  and  much  to  the  honour  of  the 
English  character  that  such  an  undertaking  should  have  been 
entered  into  without,  of  course,  the  slightest  chance  of  ever  get- 
ting the  smallest  interest  for  their  money.  It  is  only  in  England 
that  such  things  are  undertaken  and  such  enterprises  encour- 
aged. However,  there  are  moments  when  even  the  most 
enthusiastic  in  such  enterprises  begin  to  think  that  public 
assistance  is  required.     Appeals  are  made  to  the  Minister. 


BEACONSFIELD  103 

Those  appeals  are  strengthened  and  supported  by  powerful 
Parhamentary  influence.  A  Bill  is  brought  into  Parliament 
on  a  subject  which  interests  nobody,  and  it  allows  the  under- 
takers of  that  pubhc  enterprise,  the  members  of  a  public 
company,  to  raise  money.  Who  of  the  650  members  has  his 
eye  on  a  Bill  of  that  kind  ?  Probably  not  five  men  in  the 
House,  unless  they  are  the  directors  of  the  company,  are  aware 
of  it.  That  BUI  contains  a  clause  permitting  the  Lords  of 
the  Treasury  to  advance  from  the  Pubhc  Works  Loan  Fund 
a  sum  by  way  of  loan  to  carry  out  the  projects  of  that  company. 
The  Bill  is  passed.  Being  passed,  the  promoters  go  to  the 
Treasury — I  am  now  speaking  of  the  Thames  Tunnel  Company 
— they  go  to  the  Treasury.  By  virtue  of  that  clause  the  Lords 
of  the  Treasury  advance,  by  way  of  loan,  through  the  machinery 
of  Pubhc  Works  Loan  Fund,  no  less  a  sum  than  £250,000  to 
the  Thames  Tunnel  Company,  not  a  shilling  of  which  has  ever 
been  repaid,  or  can  ever  be  repaid,  and  on  which,  I  beUeve, 
only  ^  per  cent,  interest,  received  probably  as  an  admission 
fee  into  the  tunnel,  has  ever  been  paid. 

Now,  what  I  say  with  regard  to  the  system  is  this.  It 
is  perfectly  open  to  the  House  of  Commons  to  do  that  which 
all  assemblies  and  individuals  have  a  right  to  do — to  commit  a 
great  foUy.  If  a  minister  comes  forward  and  asks  the  House 
of  Commons  to  vote  £250,000  to  make  a  tunnel  under  the 
Thames,  if  we  assent  to  his  proposal,  we  have  at  least  the 
glory  of  voting  £250,000  for  that  object,  and  though  some  may 
think  that  £250,000  might  be  employed  for  a  more  useful  or 
elevating  purpose,  at  least  an  opportunity  is  given  of  appeahng 
to  the  reason  of  the  House  and  dissenting  from  the  measure. 
But  under  this  system  no  one  is  in  the  least  aware  that  £250,000 
is  advanced.  It  is  lent.  Yes,  but  how  lent  ?  It  is  a  grant 
in  the  shape  of  a  loan.  Now,  this  is  one  of  the  cases  by  which 
£250,000  and  its  accumulated  interest  have  been  lost  to  the 
country.  I  wiU  give  one  more  instance  of  the  operation  of  this 
Loan  Fund,  and  it  is  one  of  recent  interest.  I  am  ashamed  to 
say  that  I  have  been  a  Member  of  ParUament  during  the  time 
in  which  this  instance  occurred,  and  I  daresay  a  majority  now 
in  this  House  were.  Its  date  is  from  1847  to  1850,  and  it  makes 
me  blush  even  at  this  moment.  Now,  this  case  is  well  deserving 
the  attention  of  the  Committee,  because  there  is  no  reason  why 
almost  this  very  night,  or  the  next  night,  the  same  operation 


104  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

may  not  be  going  on  ;  there  is  not  the  least  reason  why 
under  this  machinery  we  may  not  every  week  be  voting 
£100,000  of  the  public  money  without  a  single  member  being 
cognisant  of  it.  The  case  which  I  will  now  call  your  attention 
to  is  that  of  Battersea  Park.  Now,  Sir,  I  am  far  from  saying 
that  it  may  not  be  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  establish 
parks  for  the  health  and  enjoyment  of  the  community.  I  do 
not  want  to  enter  into  that  question  now,  though  perhaps  I 
may  observe,  in  respect  to  the  establishment  of  a  park,  that 
it  may  fairly  be  considered  whether  the  inhabitants  of  the 
district  should  not  at  least  contribute  their  quota,  and  in  that 
case  whether  it  may  not  be  perfectly  legitimate  in  a  great 
metropolis  like  this,  that  the  central  authority  should  aid 
in  a  purpose  which  contributes  to  the  ornament  of  the  capital, 
and  the  health  of  the  general  population.  It  is  perfectly  legiti- 
mate for  the  minister  to  come  forward  and  propose  a  vote 
of  £150,000  or  more  if  necessary,  to  make  a  park  at  Battersea, 
or  anywhere  else.  The  House,  in  such  an  event,  has  the 
question  fairly  before  it,  and  may  consider  it  in  aU  its  details, 
and  if  it  sanction  it,  although  the  speculation  may  be 
improvident,  and  the  object  not  worth  the  investment,  yet  no 
one  can  complain  of  the  result. 

Let  me  inform  the  Committee  what  occurred  in  the  case  of 
Battersea  Park.  A  Bill  was  brought  into  Parliament,  as  usual, 
empowering  certain  individuals  to  buy  land  at  Battersea 
and  to  make  a  park.  A  clause  was  put  into  the  Bill — not 
compulsory,  mind  you,  but  permissive — to  enable  the  Lords 
of  the  Treasury  if  they  thought  fit,  to  advance  from  the  Public 
Works  Loan  Fund  such  a  sum  as  they  might  think  proper 
for  the  advancement  of  the  object  in  question.  The  pro- 
prietors of  Battersea  Park,  with  that  Bill  which  nobody  had 
ever  seen,  and  that  clause 

Sir  C.  Wood  :  "  It  was  a  public  Bill." 
— Yes,  a  public  Bill,  of  course,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  five 
persons  in  the  House  knew  of  its  existence — they  go  to  the 
Treasury  and  what  occurs  ?  They  obtain  an  advance  from 
the  Treasury  of  £150,000.  I  don't  ask  who  was  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer  who  sanctioned  that  allowance,  notwith- 
standing the  recent  interruption.  Of  all  the  speculations  that 
man  engaged  in,  no  speculation  was  so  absurd  as  Battersea 
Park.     The    persons    who    undertook    the    enterprise    were 


BEACONSFIELD  105 

ignorant  of  all  the  circumstances  with  which  they  had  to  deal. 
They  purchased  a  great  deal  of  land,  and  made  arrangements 
by  which  twenty  years  must  elapse,  even  if  they  were  success- 
ful, before  they  receive  any  rents  ;  and  the  margin  reserved  for 
the  Government  is  so  slight  that,  instead  of  repaying  the 
principal,  it  will  probably  never  defray  the  sum  that  is  already 
due  for  accumulated  interest ;  for,  mind  you,  they  are  in  theory 
paying  5  per  cent,  to  the  Public  Works  Loan  Fund  all  this 
time.  The  interest  is  debited  every  half  year,  and  the  arrears 
now  amount,  I  think,  to  £12,000.  Now,  Sir,  I  will  not  go  into 
any  other  instances.  I  have  done  my  duty  in  bringing  these 
before  the  Committee. 

I  have  here,  in  my  hand,  from  the  year  1824  till  1840,  a 
catalogue  of  parallel  instances,  and  the  whole  amount  is  very 
little  short  of  ^^700,000,  every  shilling  of  which  has  been  lost  to 
the  country .  "  Not  a  single  shilling  has  been  lost , ' '  said  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  (Sir  J.  Graham).  "  Why  has  he  touched 
it  ?  "  ^  Well,  I've  given  him  now  the  "  reason  why,"  and  I  think 
the  Committee  will  agree,  whatever  they  may  think  of  the 
further  merits  of  the  question,  that  in  stopping  a  system  so 
iniquitous,  I  was  only  doing  my  duty  as  a  guardian  of  the 
public  purse.  Yet  this  is  the  system  which,  according  to  the 
right  honourable  gentleman,  is  so  beneficially  administered  by 
Lord  Overstone,  by  which  loans  are  advanced  to  country  gentle- 
men for  building  lunatic  asylums  at  4  per  cent.  In  fact, 
irrespective  of  the  flagrant  circumstances  which  I  have  brought 
before  the  Committee,  time  had  virtually  done  that  for  the 
Public  Works  Loan  Fund  which  an  indignant  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer  ought  to  have  done  long  ago.  A  loan  fund  at 
4  or  5  per  cent,  founded  upon  the  assumption  that  there  was 
a  surplus  labour  and  deficient  capital,  in  an  age  when  there 
was  a  deficiency  of  labour  and  a  plethora  of  capital,  really 
had  come  to  its  natural  end  ;  and  that  is  the  cause  of  those 
large  balances  which  must  necessarily  be  swollen  each  quarter 
by  the  increment  from  the  Exchequer.  They  have,  in  fact, 
with  the  rapidly  accumulating  funds  been  led  almost  to  force 
their  loans  upon  Irish  railways  ;  but  here  the  unpaid  Com- 
missioners come  into  play,  and  take  care  that  the  security 

^  (A  reference  to  a  speech  of  Sir  J.  Graham's  on  the  advantages 
accruing  from  the  recent  measures  of  commercial  legislation.  The 
refrain  of  several  sentences  was  "  And  they  knew  the  reason  why.") 


106  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

shall  be  of  the  best  description.  And,  therefore,  that  has 
happened  within  a  very  recent  period  which  will,  perhaps, 
astonish  the  House  ;  but  such  is  the  effect  of  the  present,  and 
I  believe  the  permanent,  state  of  the  money  market,  that  an 
Irish  railway  company  that  had  asked  for  the  assistance  of  a 
very  large  sum  have  just  announced  that  they  will  not  accept 
the  money  granted  by  the  Loan  Fund,  because  they  find, 
having  a  good  security,  they  can  obtain  assistance  in  the 
ordinary  way  at  a  more  reasonable  rate. 

Under  these  circumstances,  I  felt  it  my  duty  to  bring  before 
the  attention  of  my  colleagues  the  state  of  this  department ; 
and  I  called  to  their  notice  that  not  only  was  there  this  waste 
of  public  money,  but  there  was  no  security  that  the  waste 
would  not  indefinitely  continue.  That  waste,  too,  has  taken 
place  during  a  period  of  years  when  you  have  not  been  able 
to  screw  up  your  courage  to  vote  ;f  150,000  for  a  National 
Gallery  ;  and  we  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  a 
good  thing  to  relieve  the  Consolidated  Fund  of  this  annual 
charge,  and  stop  the  machinery  by  which  such  ruinous  waste 
of  the  public  money  took  place.  Then  the  question  arose, 
What  were  we  to  do  with  the  repayments  to  this  Fund  which 
would  every  year  come  in  when  the  issue  was  stopped,  and 
which  repayments  I  placed  in  my  estimate  at  £400,000  ?  The 
right  honourable  gentleman  the  Member  for  the  University  of 
Cambridge  (Mr.  Goulbum)  seemed  to  correct  me  as  to  the 
repayments  being  £360,000  ;  but  he  confoimded  the  amount  of 
issue  from  the  Consohdated  Fund  with  the  repayments  in  a  way 
that,  with  his  experience  as  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  some- 
what surprised  me.  The  fact  is  that  the  annual  amount  issued 
from  the  Consolidated  Fund  is  no  measure  of  the  amount  of  repay- 
ments. But- the  question  arose,  What  were  we  to  do  with  these 
repayments  ?  Were  we  to  pay  this  £400,000  into  the  balances 
of  the  Exchequer  ?  That  was  the  first  question.  It  is,  no 
doubt,  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the  balances  in  the 
Exchequer  should  be  high.  That  is  a  very  great  principle. 
But,  after  all,  the  balances  in  the  Exchequer  are  nothing  more 
than  the  balances  of  the  nation  with  its  bankers  ;  and  the 
same  rule  must  apply  to  a  nation  with  its  banker  as  to  a  pri- 
vate individual  with  his  banker.  Whether  you  bank  with 
Messrs.  Drummond  or  with  the  Bank  of  England  neither 
would  allow  you  any  interest  on  your  balances.   It  is  necessary. 


BEACONSFIELD  107 

therefore,  for  the  nation,  as  for  a  private  individual,  to 
have  a  good,  ample  and  sufficient  balance ;  but  it  is  inexpedient, 
it  is  unwise,  to  have  an  excessive  balance,  and  the  consequence 
has  been  that  the  highest  authorities,  those  most  favourable 
to  retaining  a  sufficient  balance  in  the  Exchequer,  have  laid 
down  what  may  be  considered  rules  for  the  amount  of  such 
balance.  There  is  a  certain  point  which  it  is  considered 
inexpedient  that  the  balance  in  the  Exchequer  should  surmount. 

The  state  of  your  balances  in  the  Exchequer  is  this  :  they 
have  long  ago  arrived  at  that  point  ;  at  present  they  exceed 
it,  and  have  done  so  for  some  time.  Ever  since  1842,  with  the 
exception  of  one  year  of  startling  and  unexpected  vicissitudes, 
the  balances  in  the  Exchequer  have  been  very  high,  and  higher 
than  recommended  by  the  best  authorities.  The  proof  is  that, 
with  the  exception  of  1848,  never,  from  the  period  I  have 
mentioned,  has  there  been  any  occasion  to  borrow  money, 
to  receive  any  accommodation  from  the  Bank  of  England  for 
the  current  expenses  of  the  State — that  is  to  say,  at  the  end 
of  every  quarter,  when  the  dividends  were  about  to  be  paid 
there  has  always  been  in  the  Bank  a  balance  sufficient  to  dis- 
charge the  claims  of  the  public  creditor,  and  leave  a  sum  ample 
enough  for  all  the  contingencies  of  the  national  expenditure. 
Since  1849 — with  one  exception,  when  I  think  a  sum  of  £400 
or  £500  was  paid  for  deficiency  bills,  and  that  only  from  a 
technical  mistake — the  Government  has  never,  in  fact,  been 
under  the  necessity  of  appealing  to  the  Bank  for  advances. 
The  Committee,  then,  will  understand  that  if  the  £400,000  in 
question  had  been  paid  in  to  the  balances  of  the  Exchequer, 
it  would,  in  the  present  state  of  affairs,  have  been  just  the  same 
as  locking  up  that  sum  in  an  iron  chest ;  it  would  have  been 
immovable  and  unprofitable. 

I  must  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Committee  while  I  enter 
into  these  details.  Treasury  finance  is  a  subject  with  which 
the  House  is  not  very  conversant,  but  I  hope  the  House  will 
not  think  me  presumptuous  in  attempting  to  instruct  them  upon 
it.  My  own  knowledge  on  the  subject  is,  of  course,  recent. 
I  was  not  born  and  bred  a  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer — I 
am  one  of  the  Parliamentary  rabble  ;  but  I  trust,  after  all 
the  observations  that  have  been  made,  I  may  be  permitted 
to  show  that  I  have  not  neglected  to  render  myself  acquainted 
with  these  affairs.    One  thing,  I  think,  is  quite  clear.    It  is 


108  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

quite  clear  that  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  Member 
for  Halifax  is  not  in  favour  of  this  £400,000  being  paid  in  to 
the  balances  of  the  Exchequer,  because  I  have  shown  you  that 
when  brought  into  the  Exchequer  it  is  unprofitable  ;  but  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  says,  "  The  proper  thing  to  do 
with  it  is  this — it  ought  to  go  to  reduce  the  debt."  And  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  the  Member  for  the  University 
of  Cambridge  echoes  that — and  I  am  glad  to  hear  that  admission, 
because  the  Government  think  the  same.  ;f  1,000,000  debt  was 
created  by  Funding  Loan  Exchequer  Bills  in  1842,  and  therefore, 
say  the  right  honourable  baronet  and  the  right  honourable 
gentleman,  you  ought  to  reduce  the  debt,  both  therefore  being 
against  this  sum  being  paid  in  to  the  balances  of  the  Exchequer. 
Now  let  us  examine  this  question  of  the  reduction  of  the 
debt.  Upon  this  subject  there  is  some  misapprehension 
prevalent  in  this  House.  I  have  been  asked  myself,  "  What 
do  you  leave  for  the  reduction  of  the  debt  ?  In  your  financial 
statement  you  have  left  nothing."  Sir,  the  mode,  method  and 
means  by  which  the  Sinking  Fund  acts,  and  the  public  debt 
of  the  country  is  liquidated,  do  not  depend  on  the  will  of  the 
minister,  or  even  upon  a  vote  of  the  House  of  Commons  ; 
they  are  provided  for  by  legislation.  The  law  has  prescribed 
the  method  by  which  you  reduce  the  pubhc  debt  of  this  country. 
There  is,  in  fact,  only  one  way  of  acting  by  the  Sinking  Fund, 
and  the  law  has  prescribed  this — I  beg  the  attention  of  the 
House,  because  this  is  a  vital  point  of  my  argument — the  law, 
I  say,  prescribes  that  every  quarter  of  the  financial  year,  an 
account  shall  be  taken  of  our  income  and  expenditure  at  the 
Treasury,  and  in  case  a  surplus  shall  be  ascertained  to  exist, 
one-fourth  of  that  surplus  shall  be  instantly  devoted  to  the 
liquidation  of  the  public  debt  by  the  agency  of  the  Sinking 
Fund.  It  is  not  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  minister,  or  of  a 
single  House  of  Parliament ;  the  law  is  inexorable  and  impera- 
tive. It  is  impossible  to  reduce  the  debt,  unless  you  bring 
your  resources  into  the  ways  and  means.  It  is  only  by  such 
a  process  that  they  can  enter  into  the  balance  struck  of  income 
and  expenditure,  and  that  the  surplus  can  be  ascertained,  and 
one-fourth  of  that  surplus  appropriated  to  the  reduction  of  the 
debt.  And  now  I  will  show  you  how  we  propose  to  act  on  the 
debt  in  the  way  in  which  we  have  recommended  Parliament 
to  deal  with  this  £400,000  of  repayments. 


BEACONSFIELD  109 

The  House  will  assume,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the 
surplus  for  the  coming  year  is  an  accurate  estimate.     Well, 
then,  the  account  of  income  and  expenditure  is  taken  at  the 
Treasury  at  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  financial  year  ; 
and  the  surplus  being  £400,000,  one-fourth  of  that  is  imme- 
diately devoted  to  the  reduction  of  the  debt  by  the  action  of 
the  law.     The  same  process  takes  place  every  three  months — 
the  same  action  takes  place  on  the  same  surplus  of  £400,000, 
and  thus  at  the  end  of  the  year  the  whole  of  the  £400,000  is 
devoted  to  the  reduction  of  this  debt.     And,  therefore,  in 
three  years'  time,  all  things  remaining  the  same,  and  the  repay- 
ments entering  into  the  Treasury,  the  whole  of  that  sum  of 
funded  Exchequer  bills  of  £1,046,000  and  the  accumulated 
interest,  will  be  liquidated,  and  the  pubhc  debt  reduced  by 
that  amount.     There  is  no  other  way  of  acting  on  the  pubhc 
debt  or  reducing  it ;  the  course  we  propose  to  take  is  the  only 
one  that  can  be  taken  in  the  case  ;   there  is  no  alternative — 
the  law  has  so  decided  it.     By  the  course,  then,  we  have 
recommended,  we  have  in  the  first  place  put  an  end  to  a 
disastrous  waste  of  public  money.     In  the  second  place,  we 
have  relieved  the  Consolidated  Fund  from  an  annual  payment 
of  £300,000  ;   and  in  the  third  place,  we  have  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  a  reduction  of  the  public  debt  at  least  to  the  amount  of 
£1,000,000  funded,  and  all  its  accumulations.     The  question, 
I  apprehend,  assumes  a  very  different  character  after  this 
explanation.     But  this  is  only  a  narrative  of  the  conduct  of 
the  Government,     Let  us  see  what  great  authorities  have  said 
on  this  subject.     Hitherto,  as  I  have  put  the  case,  the  House 
may  be  of  opinion  that  we  have  acted  discreetly  but  unpre- 
cedentedly.     After  the  criticisms  I  have  been  subjected  to, 
let  me  inform  the  House  what  was  the  opinion  on  the  subject 
of  the  highest  authorities.     In  1822  a  Select  Committee  was 
appointed  to  inquire  into  the  public  accounts,  and  to  recom- 
mend the  means  by  which  the  keeping  of  those  accounts  might 
be  improved  ;    and  to  that  Committee  we  are  indebted,  with 
scarcely  any  exception,  for  all  the  forms  of  pubhc  accounts 
that  now  prevail.     What  was  the  recommendation  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  1822  with  regard  to  these  advances  and  repayments  ? 
That   Committee,   formed   of  the   most   distinguished   men, 
concentrated  their  attention  upon  this  sole  subject,  specifically 
recommended  that  all  advances  and  repayments  should  enter 


110  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

into  the  account  of  income  and  expenditure  ;  and  for  six 
years  the  advances  and  repayments  so  figure  in  the  public 
accounts.  It  may  be  said  that  there  was  another  Select 
Committee  on  Public  Accounts  in  1828,  and  that  they  took  a 
different  view.  That  would  not  invalidate  the  high  authority 
of  the  Committee  of  1822  ;  it  would  not  deprive  us  of  the 
authority  that  the  course  we  have  taken  is  not  imprecedented, 
because  I  have  proved  it  was  practised  for  six  years.  But  let 
us  inquire  what  was  the  opinion  of  the  Committee  of  1828. 
They  certainly  did  recommend  that  it  would  be  more  convenient 
that  advances  and  repayments  should  be  kept  in  separate 
accounts  from  those  of  the  income  and  expenditure.  But  I 
am  informed  by  a  distinguished  member  of  the  Committee, 
that  that  recommendation  did  not  arise  from  any  adoption 
of  the  opinions  now  maintained  on  this  subject  by  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  opposite  ;  and  they  added  this  to  their 
recommendation,  that,  whenever  an  issue  was  stopped  and  the 
account  closed,  then  the  general  account  was  to  be  taken, 
and  the  repayments  were  to  revert  to  their  old  position  in  the 
public  accounts.  So  even  the  Committee  of  1828  sanctioned 
the  principle  recommended  by  the  Committee  of  1822,  so  far 
as  pa3rments  and  receipts  were  concerned.  But  in  1829,  a 
law  was  passed  which  deprived  ministers  of  any  discretion  on 
this  head  ;  and  the  only  way  the  Act  of  10  George  IV,  c.  12, 
operates  on  the  reduction  of  the  debt — the  only  way  a  minister 
can  act  in  the  reduction  of  the  debt — is  by  bringing  in,  according 
to  the  recommendation  of  the  Select  Committee  of  1822,  the 
repayments  under  accounts  closed  to  ways  and  means.  It  is 
painful  to  have  to  refer  to  these  comparatively  small  matters, 
when  matters  of  so  much  greater  importance  are  before  the 
Committee  ;  but  I  hope  that  every  member  will  admit  that, 
after  the  speeches  we  have  heard,  it  is  due  to  the  Government, 
to  the  party  I  have  the  honour  to  represent,  and  to  the  House, 
that  I  should  go  into  these  details,  and  state  clearly  the  circum' 
stances  before  us,  and  vindicate,  as  I  hope  I  have  done,  the 
course  which  we  recommend. 

Well,  Sir,  I  now  approach  the  second  grand  arraignment  of 
my  financial  statement,  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the 
Member  for  Halifax  (Sir  Charles  Wood) — that  is,  the  alleged 
mistake  made  in  the  estimates  for  the  year  after  next,  as  to 
the  loss  which  will  accrue  to  the  revenue  from  the  proposed 


BEACONSFIELD  111 

semi-repeal  of  the  malt  duty.  The  House  will  recollect  that 
I  estimated  the  loss  which  would  accrue  in  the  year  1854-55 
from  the  alteration  in  the  malt  duty  at  £1,700,000.  Assuming 
that  the  amount  of  duty  remitted  would  be  about  £2,500,000, 
and  taking,  of  course,  the  most  depreciatory  view  of  the  result 
of  the  reduction  of  duty,  the  Member  for  Hahfax  placed  the 
amount  derived  from  increased  consumption  as  low  as  £200,000, 
and  he  added,  "  With  £200,000  obtained  by  the  repeal  of  your 
Scotch  drawback,  the  total  loss  will  be  £2,100,000." 

Sir  Charles  Wood  :    I  gave  you  credit  for  £400,000. 

That  is  what  I  have  just  stated.  He  said  I  took  the  increased 
consumption  at  £800,000,  which  he  described  as  preposterous 
— and  altogether  fictitious.  Let  us,  however.  Sir,  examine 
the  facts  ;  let  us  see  what  they  are.  When  I  brought  under  the 
consideration  of  the  Committee  the  subject  of  the  repeal  of  the 
malt  tax,  I  said  that  the  Government  had  followed  in  their 
treatment  of  that  tax  the  recommendation  of  the  Royal  Com- 
mission of  Excise  Inquiry,  presided  over  by  Sir  Henry  Parn  ell, 
in  1832.  The  recommendation  of  that  Committee  was,  that  in 
case  there  was  ever  free  trade  in  barley,  one-half  the  malt  tax 
should  be  repealed,  and  that  the  Scotch  and  Irish  drawbacks 
should  be  terminated.  In  the  interval  since  that  Commission 
sat  the  Irish  have  voluntarily  renounced  their  drawback. 
The  Commissioners  further  recommended  that,  when  free  trade 
in  barley  was  established,  and  the  malt  tax  was  reduced  to 
one-half,  an  end  should  be  put  to  the  enormous  system  of  credit 
given  to  maltsters.  I  said  that,  although  we  wished  to  follow 
the  recommendation  of  those  eminent  men,  the  members  of 
the  Excise  Commission,  as  nearly  as  possible,  we  thought  it 
important,  in  regard  to  the  recommendation  as  to  the  reduction 
of  the  credit  given  to  the  maltsters,  that  the  trade  should  not 
be  disturbed,  although  we  felt  that  the  whole  system  was 
vicious  in  principle  and  pernicious  in  practice,  and  that  it  was 
necessary  to  make  some  considerable  change.  That  subject 
has  been  under  our  consideration.  Our  object  has  been  to 
put  an  end  to,  or  to  modify,  a  system  which  grew  out  of  circum- 
stances totally  different  from  those  of  the  age  in  which  we  hve, 
and,  while  we  placed  the  conduct  of  the  trade  upon  a  more 
healthy  and  satisfactory  basis,  not  to  disturb  the  trade.  But 
the  effect  of  the  new  arrangement  we  propose  as  to  this  credit, 
though,  in  our  opinion,  it  will  not  in  any  way  disturb  the  trade, 


112  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

will  have  an  immediate  influence  upon  the  revenue.  In  the 
year  1854-55  there  will  be  a  sum  of  £600,000  paid  to  the  revenue, 
which,  if  this  system  of  credit  were  not  reformed,  would  not  be 
obtained.  Now,  what  did  I  do  under  these  circumstances  ? 
Assuming  that  the  numerical  loss  from  the  semi-repeal  of  the 
malt  tax  would  be  £2,500,000,  I  deducted  from  that  amount 
the  sum  just  stated,  as  regards  the  year  1854-55.  That  reduced 
the  numerical  loss  to  £1,900,000.  Then  the  sum  of  £200,000 
obtained  by  the  repeal  of  the  Scotch  drawback  would  further 
reduce  it  to  £1,700,000.  As  I  was  not  making  a  formal  esti- 
mate to  the  House,  and  dealing  with  a  time  so  remote,  I  would 
not  make  any  allowance  for  that  increased  consumption  which 
was  admitted  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman.  If  I  had 
made  an  allowance  for  the  increased  consumption,  according 
to  his  estimate,  the  loss  for  the  year  1854-55,  instead  of 
£1,700,000,  would  have  been  only  £1,500,000  ;  but  if  I  had 
made  an  allowance  according  to  the  estimate  which  was  given 
me  by  the  highest  authorities  in  the  trade  it  would  have 
reached  a  much  lower  sum.  But  as  I  have  never  offered  any 
estimate,  since  I  have  had  the  honour  of  addressing  this  House, 
which  has  not,  I  hope,  been  prudent  and  moderate,  I  refrained 
altogether  from  taking  the  influence  of  increased  consumption 
into  calculation  ;  otherwise  I  might  have  fairly  described  the 
estimated  surplus  of  1854-55  at  £800,000  instead  of  £400,000. 
The  Member  for  the  University  of  Cambridge  next  advanced, 
and  he  disputed  the  accuracy  of  my  estimate  of  the  amount  of 
drawback  payable  in  October  to  the  maltsters.  He  wanted  to 
know  on  what  data  that  estimate  was  framed.  Well,  Sir,  I 
will  teU  him.  After  all,  there  is  only  one  way  of  carrying  on 
the  public  business.  When  a  question  of  this  kind  arises,  we 
must  obtain  the  best  information  that  we  can  get  from  the  most 
authentic  quarters,  and  must  exercise  our  own  judgment 
upon  the  facts  which  are  placed  before  us.  WeU,  Sir,  the 
highest  authorities — men  whose  information  upon  this  subject 
is  unequalled,  and  whose  intelligence  and  integrity  of  character 
are  indisputable — these,  the  highest  authorities,  united  in 
recommending  me  to  take  one-third  of  the  stock  as  the  amount 
upon  which  I  should  have  to  pay  drawback  on  the  10th  of 
October  ;  that  is,  one-sixth  of  the  duty — and  the  sum  I  was 
recommended  to  take,  as  a  very  safe  estimate  of  the  amount  of 
drawback  calculated  by  those  who  are  perfectly  acquainted 


BEACONSFIELD  113 

with  the  trade,  was  £880,000.  Well,  according  to  my  habit, 
I  estimated  the  amount  of  drawback  at  £1,000,000,  and  these 
are  the  numerals  which  have  excited  the  indignant  rhetoric  of 
the  Member  for  the  University. 

"  But  why  fix  the  10th  of  October  ?  "  said  the  honourable 
and  learned  Member  for  Kidderminster  (Mr.  Lowe).  "  Here 
is  a  plot,"  said  the  honourable  gentleman  ;  "  if  we  can  only 
find  out  why  the  Government  fix  upon  the  10th  of  October, 
we  shall  be  able  at  once  to  penetrate  these  financial  mystifica- 
tions." That  honourable  gentleman  is  an  accession  to  our 
debates — ^he  has  shown,  on  the  rare  occasions  when  he  has 
addressed  the  House,  considerable  information  ;  but  there  is, 
certainly,  one  subject  on  which  his  knowledge  has  been  most 
conspicuous,  and  that  is — ^brewing.  I  am  surprised  that  an 
honourable  gentleman  who  seemed  so  complete  a  master  of 
that  art,  and  who  made  so  eloquent  a  defence  of  the  system 
of  credit  to  maltsters,  should,  of  all  men,  be  the  person  to  ask 
why  we  fixed  upon  the  10th  of  October  for  bringing  into 
operation  the  half-repeal  of  the  malt  tax.  Now  I  had  calcu- 
lated that  if  I  should  be  as  successful  with  regard  to  my 
resolutions  as  I  could  possibly  expect  to  be,  it  was  not  probable 
that  the  resolution  upon  the  malt  tax  would  pass  before 
March  ;  but  the  policy  which  I  announced  and  recommended 
in  December  would,  if  I  had  not  proposed  a  drawback,  have 
completely  paralysed  the  trade.  Every  maltster  in  the  country 
would  have  stopped  his  operations.  It  was  necessary  I  should 
announce  that  the  Government  would  allow  a  drawback  on 
stock-in-hand,  and  the  consequence  is  that  the  trade  goes  on 
just  as  usual.  The  honourable  gentleman  who  possessed 
such  remarkable  information  on  the  subject  of  brewing  and 
malting  ought  to  know  that  by  far  the  greater  amount  of  duty 
which  is  charged,  and  upon  which  the  usual  credit  is  given 
for  1853-54,  is  charged  between  the  months  of  October  and 
April.  Malting  virtually  ceases  at  the  end  of  May.  From  May 
to  October  malting  does  not  go  on,  but  there  is  something  that 
does  go  on,  and  that  is  brewing.  The  brewer  acts  upon  the 
stock  of  the  maltster  ;  and  therefore  when  you  have  to  pay 
the  drawback,  you  pay  it  under  the  most  advantageous  cir- 
cumstances in  paying  it  at  the  period  when  the  stock-in-hand 
is  most  reduced,  and  when  the  malting  season  again  commences. 
In  fixing  the  10th  of  October,  then,  I  fix  a  date  recommended  by 

8— (3I7I) 


114  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

those  best  acquainted  with  the  subject  with  which  I  was  dealing. 
That  is  my  answer  to  the  inquiry  of  the  honourable  gentleman. 
Sir,  I  do  not  like  to  advert  to  a  subject  to  which  I  have 
already  referred ;  but  I  have  just  remembered  that  the 
honourable  Member  for  Kidderminster  said  that  he  should 
look  to  me  in  my  reply  to  notice  the  instance  of  the  mortgage, 
which  he  adduced  as  a  parallel  more  apposite  than  his  own. 
I  will  suppose  the  case  of  a  careful  father  of  a  family,  who 
every  three  months  takes  account  of  his  expenditure  and 
income,  and  devotes  one-fourth  of  his  surplus  to  the  payment 
of  his  debts,  a  portion  of  those  debts  being  incurred  by  advances 
to  his  son,  but  the  son,  when  he  makes  the  repayments  for  these 
advances,  makes  them  into  the  hands  of  a  banker,  by  whom 
no  interest  is  given,  so  the  father,  instead  of  allowing  the  money 
to  lie  idly  there,  takes  it  into  his  general  account,  and  when 
he  strikes  his  quarterly  balance  apphes  the  repayments  as  part 
of  his  surplus  to  the  reduction  of  his  debts.  That  is  my  answer 
to  the  case  of  the  honourable  gentleman,  and  I  humbly  deem 
my  instance  an  exacter  parallel  than  his  own.  Then  there  is 
another  subject  upon  which  the  honourable  and  learned 
Member  for  Kidderminster  is  a  great  authority,  and  that  not 
only  here,  but  I  suspect  elsewhere.  According  to  the  honour- 
able gentleman,  the  Kaffir  war  has  broken  out  again.  Now, 
I  made  a  statement  to  the  House  a  fortnight  ago  respecting  the 
prospects  of  extraordinary  expenditure  with  regard  to  the 
Kaf&r  war.  I  formed  my  opinion  on  the  Kaffir  war — with 
great  deference  to  the  despatches  which  are  received  by  my 
right  honourable  friend  the  Secretary  of  State — from  the 
despatches  which  are  forwarded  to  my  own  department  from 
a  branch  of  the  service  under  my  immediate  supervision — I 
mean  the  commissariat  department,  a  branch  of  the  service 
which  deals  entirely  with  the  extraordinary  expenditure  under 
the  control  of  the  Treasury.  Whatever  the  result  may  be,  it 
is  my  duty  to  express  my  belief  that  the  public  funds  were 
never  more  ably  administered  than  by  those  who  have  regu- 
lated the  extraordinary  expenditure  of  the  Kaffir  war  in  the 
commissariat  department.  That  department  communicates 
directly  with  the  Treasury,  and  although  these  despatches 
naturally  confine  themselves  mainly  to  the  question  of  expendi- 
ture, there  is  a  great  deal  of  valuable  information  conveyed 
in  them  to  the  Government  in  a  less  formal  manner  than  in  the 


BEACONSFIELD  115 

despatches  received  in  other  quarters.  Well,  upon  the  infor- 
mation which  I  have  thus  received,  which  has  never  yet 
deceived  me,  which  has  justified  me,  at  the  commencement  of 
the  year,  in  not  calling  upon  the  House  to  confirm  their  vote 
of  £200,000,  I  made  the  statement  the  other  night,  that  I 
beheved  the  Kaffir  war  was  terminated.  We  have  had  more 
recent  information  ;  and  I  can  truly  say  that  all  the  information 
that  has  reached  me  has  entirely  substantiated  the  statement 
I  made  upon  the  previous  authority.  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
saying,  the  Kaffir  war  is  terminated.  The  best  evidence  I 
have  is,  that  the  commissariat  department,  who  are  dealing 
with  the  extraordinary  expenditure,  the  only  one  that  figures 
in  our  estimate,  are  winding  up  their  extraordinary  accounts  ; 
and  they  have  announced  to  me  that,  except  for  some  casualties 
which  are  always  liable  to  occur  in  any  account,  they  will  not 
trouble  me  for  any  further  advances.  They  also  give  inci- 
dental details  of  the  state  of  the  country,  which  convince  me 
that  the  war  is  finished. 

In  a  war  with  a  savage  country  you  cannot  have  peace 
suddenly  and  precisely  ascertained,  as  you  may  with  a  nation 
with  which  you  can  enter  into  a  treaty,  or  where  you  can  take 
the  capital,  or  where  some  incident  occurs  which  convinces 
all  the  inhabitants  that  the  struggle  is  over.  A  sort  of 
flickering  ember  there  may  be,  and  to  the  last  an  officer  may  be 
shot,  or  some  straggling  assassination  may  occur  ;  but  that  the 
Kaffirs  can  now  bring  any  force  into  the  field,  I  believe  the 
Committee  may  be  satisfied  is  impossible.  It  is  not  that 
several  chiefs  have  surrendered — these  things  have  happened 
before  ;  it  is  not  that  the  Waterkloof  is  cleared — ^though  that 
is  important ;  but  it  is  that  in  the  bush,  in  the  Amatolas, 
skeletons  of  the  Kaffirs  are  found  ;  it  is  clear  they  have  no 
means  of  subsistence  :  they  are  lingering  in  the  bush  and  dying. 
The  same  ship  that  brought  me  the  information  on  which  I 
formed  my  opinion,  of  course  brought  despatches  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  and  here  is  a  despatch  of  General  Cathcart. 
I  will  read  a  paragraph  from  it,  if  the  Committee  wish  :  it  is 
strictly  in  keeping  with  the  subject ;  we  are  vindicating  the 
estimates,  and  I  rather  think  I  ought  to  do  so.  It  is  dated 
from  Graham's  Town,  the  12th  of  October,  1852 — 

By  this  report,  and  other  events  which  are  detailed  in  my  despatch 
respecting  British  Kaffraria,  you  will  perceive  that  the  war,  or  rebellion. 


116  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

may  now  be  considered  at  an  end  ;  and  as  it  has  been  attained,  not  by 
any  compromise  or  treaty,  but  by  force  of  arms,  and  a  severe  moral 
lesson,  by  the  dispersion  and  expulsion  of  the  most  powerful  tribe  from 
the  natural  strongholds  which  they  long  believed  to  be  impregnable, 
cannot  fail  to  impress  upon  those  who  are  conscious  of  their  inferiority 
in  respect  to  these  natural  advantages,  the  ultimate  ruin  and  destruc- 
tion that  must  be  the  result  of  rebellious  opposition  to  Her  Majesty's 
authority  ;  and  there  is  reason  to  hope,  provided  that  authority  be 
duly  supported  by  an  adequate  permanent  mihtary  estabhshment,  that 
any  similar  protracted  and  expensive  Kaffrarian  war  may  be  long 
averted. 

I  read  that  because  it  is  a  definite  announcement.  With  regard 
to  the  '*  adequate  mihtary  estabhshment,"  the  right  honour- 
able baronet  need  not  be  alarmed  ;  it  will  be  very  moderate  ; 
we  shall  depend  upon  the  mounted  pohce,  which  is  a  colonial 
force,  paid  for,  of  course,  by  the  colony — a  colony  with  a  free 
constitution.  Colonies  with  constitutions  will,  I  apprehend, 
always  be  ready  to  defray  the  expense  of  self-defence.  The 
head-quarters  of  General  Cathcart  are  now  at  Graham's  Town. 
He  has  withdrawn  two  regiments  from  the  seat  of  war,  and  I 
trust  we  shall  soon  be  able  to  withdraw  others. 

Sir,  there  is  another  point  in  the  estimate  which  I  ought  to 
notice,  which  has  been  urged  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
the  Member  for  Cambridge  University  (Mr.  Goulbum).  He 
said  I  had  made  no  allowance  for  the  loss  to  the  revenue  from 
the  proposed  permission  for  refining  sugar  in  bond.  It  is  very 
inconvenient  for  me,  at  this  moment,  to  refer  in  any  detail  to 
the  subject  of  refining  in  bond.  The  refining  in  bond  will 
depend  upon  certain  conditions.  I  have  pledged  myself  that 
those  conditions  shall  be  shortly  placed  before  those  most 
interested,  and  I  think  it  improper  that  they  shall  be  pre- 
viously bruited  about.  I  can  only  say,  therefore,  at  present, 
that  I  do  not  make  any  allowance  for  a  loss  on  refining  in  bond, 
because  I  believe  not  the  shghtest  loss  to  the  revenue  will 
occur.  I  hope  the  right  honourable  gentleman  will  at  present 
be  satisfied  with  my  giving  my  opinion,  and  not  press  me  to 
go  into  any  detail  upon  this  point. 

Sir,  I  approach  more  serious  subjects.  It  has  been  said  that 
the  house  tax  has  been  proposed  by  the  Government  in  order 
to  enable  them  to  carry  the  semi-repeal  of  the  malt  tax.  Well, 
I  admit  that  this  is  a  very  plausible  charge  ;  it  is  a  good 
party   charge.      It   is   very   possible   that,    were   I   in  their 


BEACONSFIELD  117 

situation,  I  should  have  made  the  charge  myself.  Nevertheless, 
though  it  be  a  plausible  charge,  a  good  party  charge,  it  is  not 
a  just  charge. 

These  measures  have  no  connection  whatever  in  the  pohcy 
we  have  thought  it  our  duty  to  recommend.  Sir,  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  opposite  informed  the  House  on  Tuesday 
night  that  I  promised  the  country  a  new  system  of  taxation  ; 
but  he  did  not  produce  any  authority  for  that  statement,  and 
when  statements  of  such  magnitude  are  made,  authorities 
should  be  furnished.  I  will  sit  down  now,  if  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman  will  rise  and  give  me  the  authority.  It  is  very 
true  that  the  lively  Member  for  Middlesex  (Mr.  Osborne) 
quoted  a  passage  from  an  address  to  my  constituents,  which 
certainly  was  not  merely  made  to  my  constituents  in  Bucking- 
hamshire, but  to  those  in  other  places  whom  my  feeble  authority 
might  influence  ;  but  if  an  opponent  could  have  wished  to 
assist  the  man  whose  adversary  he  was,  he  could  not  have 
done  me  more  justice  or  given  me  a  better  turn  than  the 
Member  for  Middlesex  has  done  in  quoting  the  passage  in 
question.  I  listened  to  his  speech  with  all  that  pleasure  which 
I  am  sure  the  House  shared.  I  think  it  was  one  of  his  best 
speeches  :  but  the  passage  that  most  gratified  me  was  that 
which  he  quoted  from  my  own  address,  for  I  had  not  seen  that 
address  for  a  long  time,  and  really,  after  some  of  these  charges 
which  have  been  lately  made,  I  had  arrived  at  almost  a  nervous 
state  as  to  its  contents.  What  did  I  say  there  ?  I,  who  am 
charged  with  misleading  the  farmers  at  the  election,  and 
throwing  them  over  afterwards — I  said  that  the  genius  of  the 
age  was  in  favour  of  free  exchange,  and  that  it  was  in  vain 
to  struggle  against  it ;  that  they  must  find  the  means  of  meeting 
it  by  reducing  the  cost  of  production,  and  that  one  of  the  means 
of  reducing  the  cost  of  production  was  a  revision  of  taxation. 
I  think  more  sensible  advice,  expressed  in  more  moderate 
language,  could  not  have  been  given  ;  yet  I  am  described  as 
having  deceived  the  farmers  before  the  election,  and  thrown 
them  over  afterwards. 

Sir,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  says  we  are  assembled 
here  to  receive  the  new  system  of  taxation  which  I  promised. 
Where  is  his  authority  ?  Her  Majesty's  Government  have 
fulfilled  all  that  they  promised  ;  they  did  not  promise  a  new 
system  of  taxation,  but  they  did  promise  a  revision  of  the 


118  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

taxation  of  the  country.  The  Committee  will,  I  hope,  excuse 
my  dwelling  on  this  point.  We  did  think  it  necessary  to  revise 
our  system  of  taxation.  We  gave  to  the  subject  a  long,  an 
anxious  and  an  impartial  consideration.  In  reviewing  that 
which  I  may  truly  call  a  colossal  subject,  the  question  naturally 
divided  itself  into  several  groups — if  I  may  use  a  word  now 
familiar  to  us.  We  had  to  consider  those  articles  that  enter 
into  the  general  consumption  of  the  people,  that  are  necessary 
for  their  healthy  sustenance,  and  that  are  exposed  to  enor- 
mous imposts,  such  as  tea  and  malt.  That  was  one  subject 
on  which  we  felt  that  it  was  necessary  something  should  be 
done  to  meet  the  principles  of  unrestricted  competition,  now 
permanently  established  as  the  principle  of  our  commercial 
code.  We  wished  in  this  respect  more  nearly  to  assimilate 
our  financial  with  our  commercial  system.  We  had  to  consider 
the  whole  question  of  the  stamp  duties  with  reference  to  those 
real  burdens  upon  land — upon  the  transfer  of  land — which  must 
sooner  or  later  be  dealt  with  ;  and  a  question  of  the  utmost 
difficulty  which  must  also  not  long  be  neglected — the  question 
of  the  legacy  and  probate  duties.  We  had  to  consider  whether 
it  was  possible  to  propose  to  Parliament  a  duty  on  succession 
which,  in  connection  with  the  total  reform  of  the  burdens  on 
the  transfer  of  land,  would  be  an  equitable  and  just  settlement 
of  the  question,  and  one  which  was  for  the  welfare  of  all  classes. 
That  is  what  I  may  call  the  second  group.  We  had,  in  the 
third  place,  to  consider  those  Excise  Laws  which  exercise  a 
pernicious  influence  upon  the  employment  of  capital,  and  upon 
the  employment  of  labour,  like  the  soap  and  paper  duties. 

The  question  of  the  assessed  taxes,  with  the  necessary 
reforms  which  they  require,  alone  form  a  fourth  group.  We 
were  obUged  to  consider  the  whole  of  our  tariff  with  regard  to 
our  commercial  relations  with  other  countries  because  there 
was  an  inclination  in  some  countries  to  increase  these  com- 
mercial relations,  and  we  wished  to  encourage  them.  These 
were  five  great  subjects,  all  of  them  demanding  our  attention, 
with  all  of  which,  sooner  or  later,  a  Government  must  deal ; 
and  we  had  to  choose  how  we  would  commence  this  arduous 
enterprise.  But  there  was  a  very  important  question  also  to 
consider  when  we  took  a  general  survey  of  our  financial  system  ; 
a  very  important  question  to  settle  before  we  could  decide  even 
as  to  the  first  step  we  should  take  ;   and  that  was  how  far  we 


BEACONSFIELD  119 

could  prevail  upon  the  country  to  consent  to  that  amount  of 
direct  taxation  which  was  necessary  for  any  ministry  that 
should  attempt  to  enter  into  a  career  of  financial  reform.  Sir, 
I  have  been  accused  by  the  Member  for  Halifax  (Sir  C.  Wood) 
of  making  a  proposition  which  recklessly  increases  the  direct 
taxation  of  the  country,  I  have  been  accused  by  the  Member 
for  Carlisle  (Sir  James  Graham),  prompt  in  accusation  at  aU 
times,  of  pushing  direct  taxation  to  a  rash  extreme.  In  the 
first  place,  the  proposition  I  made  on  the  part  of  the  Govern- 
ment, instead  of  recklessly  increasing  the  amount  of  direct 
taxation,  would  not,  if  it  passed,  occasion  so  great  an  amount 
of  direct  taxation  as  prevailed  under  the  superintendence  of 
the  finances  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  Member 
for  Halifax  himself,  when  he  enjoyed,  not  only  the  income 
and  property  tax,  but  the  window  tax,  which,  in  the  last  year 
of  its  existence,  brought  him  nearly  £2,000,000  sterling.  The 
right  honourable  gentleman,  who  says  you  must  not  recklessly 
increase  the  amount  of  direct  taxation,  and  charges  me  with 
doing  so,  when  in  1850  he  commuted  the  window  tax  for  a 
house  tax,  first  proposed,  though  fruitlessly,  a  commutation 
which  would  have  established  a  higher  house  tax  than  that 
which  we  now  recommend  coupled  by  us  with  great  remissions 
of  indirect  imposts. 

But  is  this  aU  ?  Is  this  all  that  has  been  done  by  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  who  charges  me  with  proposing  reck- 
lessly to  increase  the  direct  taxation  of  the  country  ?  Why, 
he  seems  to  forget  that  he  is  the  minister  who  with  the  property 
and  income  tax  you  have  now  producing  its  full  amount, 
with  a  window  tax  that  brought  nearly  £2,000,000,  came 
down  to  the  House  of  Commons  one  day  and  proposed  to  a 
startled  assembly  to  double  nearly  that  property  and  income 
tax.  Recklessness  !  Why,  Sir,  if  recklessness  be  carelessness 
of  consequences  ;  if  it  be  the  conduct  of  a  man  who  has  not 
well  weighed  the  enterprise  in  which  he  is  embarked,  what  are 
we  to  esteem  this  behaviour  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  ? 
We  hear  much  of  the  duplication  of  the  house  tax — an  immense 
amount ;  but  if  the  right  honourable  gentleman  had  carried 
the  duplication  of  the  property  and  income  tax,  I  think  he 
might  fairly  have  been  charged  with  recklessly  increasing  the 
direct  taxation  of  the  country.  The  most  curious  thing, 
however,  is  that  the  minister  who  came  forward  to  make  a 


120  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

proposition  which  nothing  but  the  most  grave  conjuncture  of 
circumstances  might  have  justified,  at  the  first  menace  of  oppo- 
sition withdrew  his  proposition.  Talk  of  recklessness  !  Why, 
what  in  the  history  of  finance  is  equal  to  the  recklessness  of 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  ?  And  what  was  the  ground 
on  which  he  withdrew  this  enormous  proposition — a  proposition 
which  only  the  safety  of  the  State  would  have  justified  him  in 
making.  When  he  was  beaten,  baffled,  humiliated,  he  came 
down  to  the  House  of  Commons  and  said  that  he  had  sufficient 
revenue  without  resorting  to  that  proposition.  The  future 
historian  will  not  be  believed  when  he  states  that  a  minister 
came  down  with  a  proposition  nearly  to  double  the  income  tax, 
and  when  the  proposition  was  rejected,  the  next  day  announced 
that  the  ways  and  means  were  ample  without  it.  But  then 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  tells  me — in  not  very  polished, 
and  scarcely  in  Parliamentary  language — that  I  do  not  know 
my  business.  He  may  have  learned  his  business.  The  House 
of  Commons  is  the  best  judge  of  that ;  I  care  not  to  be  his 
critic.  Yet,  if  he  has  learned  his  business,  he  has  still  to  learn 
that  petulance  is  not  sarcasm,  and  that  insolence  is  not 
invective. 

The  Committee  will  permit  me  to  remind  them  in  dealing 
with  those  five  great  groups  of  taxation  to  which  I  have  called 
their  attention,  and  all  of  which  I  may  say  equally  demanded 
the  consideration  of  a  minister,  we  had  to  deal  with  the  great 
subject  of  direct  taxation.  There  was,  indeed,  the  income  and 
property  tax  in  existence  for  a  brief  space.  It  was,  perhaps, 
possible  that  the  ministry  might  have  come  forward  in  the 
House  of  Commons  and  obtained  a  temporary  continuance  of 
that  impost.  That  was  not,  however,  by  any  means  certain. 
But  there  were.  Sir,  peculiar  circumstances  connected  with  the 
position  of  the  ministers  with  respect  to  the  property  and 
income  tax.  Her  Majesty's  Government  were  of  opinion  that 
the  time  could  no  longer  be  delayed  when  the  Government  of 
this  country  must  recognise  a  difference  between  the  incomes 
which  accrued  from  precarious  and  incomes  which  accrued 
from  reahsed  property.  It  was  evident  that  such  an  acknow- 
ledgment acted  upon  must  diminish  the  produce  from  that 
tax  at  a  moment  when  certainly  we  did  not  wish  our  resources 
from  direct  taxation  to  be  diminished.  It  is  dif&cult  to  answer 
every  observation  that  has  been  made  in  the  course  of  this 


BEACONSFIELD  121 

debate  ;  but  another  right  honourable  gentleman  who  recently 
spoke  has  been  criticising — I  think,  before  the  appropriate 
time — what  he  calls  my  BiU  with  respect  to  the  property  and 
income  tax.  In  the  first  place,  my  BiU  is  not  before  the  House. 
When  he  sees  it  he  may  criticise  it.  Nobody  who  has  had  to 
prepare  a  property  and  income  tax  can  be  ignorant  that  there 
are  some  anomalies  in  Schedule  D.  The  anomahes,  however, 
are  not  confined  merely  to  that  schedule.  To  frame  a  complete 
measure  on  this  subject  would  baffle  the  happiest  genius  in 
finance.  There  are,  no  doubt,  alterations  which  may  be  made 
in  the  arrangement  of  that  schedule  ;  it  will  be  open  to  any 
member  to  propose  such.  But  if  they  be  made  they  will  not 
affect,  at  least  not  materially,  the  financial  result  which  I 
placed  before  the  Committee.  In  laying  the  resolutions  on 
the  property  and  income  tax  on  the  table,  we  did  not  propose 
to  deal  with  them  before  Christmas.  We  placed  them  on  the 
table  that  the  principle  of  the  whole  of  our  financial  measures 
should  be  before  members. 

The  resolutions  express  the  principles  we  wish  to  assert. 
That  is  all  we  attempted  at  this  moment.  There  may  be, 
there  unquestionably  are,  minor  modifications  of  the  schedules 
possible  ;  but  between  the  general  statement  of  our  policy 
and  laying  the  resolutions  on  the  table  there  was  no  time  to 
consider  these  less  important  points,  nor,  had  there  been  time, 
would  it  have  been  opportune  to  do  so.  We  reserved  their 
consideration  until  the  occasion  of  calling  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  the  general  question  of  the  renewal  of  the  tax.  We 
had,  then,  to  consider  the  great  question  of  direct  taxation. 
It  was  totally  impossible — with  whatever  group  we  commenced 
— that  we  could  embark  on  a  career  of  financial  reform  really 
efficient,  unless  we  had  a  certain  amount  of  direct  taxation, 
still  including  the  income  tax,  to  which  we  could  trust.  What 
is  the  rule  we  laid  down  ?  Instead  of  being  reckless,  or,  in 
the  language  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  Member 
for  Carhsle,  ready  to  push  direct  taxation  to  a  rash  extreme, 
we  resolved  that  the  sum  of  direct  taxation  on  which  we  should 
rest  should  be  in  amount  of  revenue  inferior  to  that  which 
had  recently  prevailed  in  this  country,  and  which,  since  the 
repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  has  been  cheerfully  assented  to  by 
the  people.  Well,  we  had  then  to  lay  down  two  principles  in 
dealing  with  direct  taxation.     We  had  to  assert  as  regarded 


122  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

the  property  and  income  tax,  a  difference  between  incomes 
of  a  precarious  and  incomes  of  a  fixed  character.  We  had  next 
to  vindicate  a  principle  which  we  beheved,  and  do  beheve,  is 
a  just  one,  and  which,  if  not  now,  must  ultimately  be  recognised 
and  adopted — namely,  that  the  basis  of  direct  taxation  should 
be  enlarged.  Having  these  two  principles  to  guide  us  in 
devising  means  by  which  we  were  to  obtain  the  amount  of 
direct  taxation  necessary  for  our  purpose,  we  believe  that 
we  have  applied  them  moderately,  temperately,  scientifically 
and  wisely,  in  the  measures  before  the  House.  We  believe 
that  the  difference  which  we  recognise  between  realised  and 
precarious  incomes  is  one  which  certainly  does  not  err  on  the 
side  of  excess  ;  but  that  the  recognition  of  that  difference  is 
also  one  which  will  justly  gratify  the  working  millions  of  this 
country,  and  that  in  asking  them  to  contribute  to  the  revenue 
of  the  country  by  extending  and  increasing  the  house  tax,  we 
are  taking  a  course  which,  in  its  operation  and  ultimate  results, 
will  be  greatly  for  their  interests. 

The  question  of  the  suffrage  has  been  introduced  into  this 
debate.  The  policy  of  mixing  up  the  franchise  with  taxation 
is,  in  my  opinion,  very  questionable  ;  but  I  say  to  those  gentle- 
men on  the  other  side  of  the  House  who  have  sought  to 
introduce  this  question  of  the  suffrage,  that,  if  it  is  to  be  a 
permanent  feature  of  our  social  system  that  there  shall  be  a 
particular  class  invested  with  political  power,  which  shall 
exercise  that  power  to  throw  an  undue  weight  of  direct  taxation 
upon  the  wealthier  portion  of  the  community,  and  an  undue 
weight  of  indirect  taxation  on  the  working  classes,  I  cannot 
imagine  a  circumstance  more  fatal  to  this  country,  or  one  more 
pregnant  of  disastrous  consequences.  But  of  this  I  feel  con- 
vinced, that  those  who  wOl  first  experience  the  disastrous 
consequences  will  be  the  privileged  class  itself.  There  was  one 
other  observation  by  the  Member  for  Carlisle  which  I  feel  I 
ought  to  notice.  That  right  honourable  gentleman — whom  I 
will  not  say  I  greatly  respect,  but  rather  whom  I  greatly 
regard — particularly  dilated  on  the  hard  case  of  that  class  whose 
incomes  amount  to  between  £100  and  £150  a  year  ;  those  whom 
he  considered  to  form  the  most  straightened  class,  perhaps,  in 
the  country,  and  who  bore  most  of  the  brunt  of  indirect  tax- 
ation. That  argument,  or  that  assertion  rather,  has  been 
followed   up   this   evening   by   the   honourable   and   learned 


BEACONSFIELD  123 

gentleman  the  Member  for  Southampton  (Sir  A.  Cockbum). 
Now,  that  subject  has  been  investigated  by  men  who  have 
devoted  their  hves  to  the  study  of  these  questions,  and  whose 
opinions  are  superior  to  all  party  contentions.  It  has  recently 
been  investigated  by  a  gentleman  who  is  what  is  called  a 
Liberal,  and  who,  if  he  were  a  member  of  this  House,  would  sit 
opposite  to  me — I  mean  Mr.  Greg,  one  of  the  most  able  inquirers 
into  these  subjects  of  the  present  day  ;  and  it  is  his  opinion — 
and  I  believe  that  if  any  position  has  been  more  completely 
established  than  another  as  regards  the  incidence  of  taxation, 
it  is  this — that  there  is  no  class  upon  whom  that  incidence  falls 
more  lightly  than  upon  those  who  possess  incomes  from  £100 
to  £150  a  year.  It  is  that  class  who  possess  property  of  £300 
or  £400  a  year  who  bear  the  brunt  of  indirect  taxation.  That 
can  be  shown  in  the  most  complete  and  satisfactory  manner. 
But  we  had,  on  Tuesday  night,  a  doleful  and  piteous  appeal 
made  to  the  House  upon  the  hardship  of  taxing  "  poor  clerks  " 
with  incomes  of  between  £100  and  £150  a  year.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman  stated  that  £150  a  year  was  exactly 
that  point  in  the  scale  where  manual  labour  ends  and  pro- 
fessional skill  begins.  You  can  recall  the  effective  manner 
in  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman  stated  that.  He 
showed  himself  an  unrivalled  artist  when  he  told  us  that  this 
was  the  point  where  the  fustian  jacket  ceased  and  broadcloth 
began. 

Few  can  comprehend  the  labour  of  research  and  thought 
necessary  to  determine  the  just  incidence  of  taxation.  I  am 
sure  that  there  has  been  nothing  ever  written  on  the  subject 
of  which  I  have  not  attempted  to  avail  myself.  My  researches 
have  not  been  meagre.  I  hope  I  am  superior  to  quoting 
Hansard  "  and  all  that  " — but  I  may  state,  that  among  the 
documents,  public  and  official — the  records  of  the  great  minis- 
ters who  have  preceded  my  humble  effort — which  I  read  to 
guide  me,  I  found  one  which  greatly  influenced  me.  I  found 
the  Superannuation  Bill  of  1834,  which  was  drawn  up  and  intro- 
duced by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  Member  for 
Carlisle,  being  one  of  those  laudable  efforts  which  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  has  made  to  improve  the  administra- 
tion of  the  country.  Well,  this  was  its  principle  :  I  found  in 
that  Bill  that  the  line  was  drawn  at  £100  per  annum  ;  that  the 
"  poor  clerk  "  under  that  sum  only  pays  2^  per  cent.,  while 


124  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

the  "  poor  clerk  "  above  that  sum,  though  he  may  have  only 
£110  a  year,  pays  5  per  cent.  That  was  one  of  the  reckless 
legislative  labours  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the 
Member  for  Carlisle.  I  know  my  deficiencies  as  well  as  any 
man  in  this  House — probably  better.  But,  after  all,  what, 
I  ask,  is  to  guide  us  ?  I  am  perfectly  willing  not  to  lay  too  much 
stress  on  the  efea  pieroenta — uttered  in  the  heat  of  debate, 
but  when  I  refer  to  public  records,  and  when  I  look  at  a  statute 
of  the  realm,  then  I  have  a  right  to  suppose  that  I  encounter 
the  calm,  soild  and  solemn  conclusions  of  a  statesman.  Though 
I  would  not  quote  a  passage  of  a  speech  as  absolute  authority 
for  legislation,  yet  if  I  find  a  principle  embalmed  in  a  statute, 
I  feel  that,  although  time  may  have  elapsed,  and  though 
opinions  may  have  changed  upon  other  matters,  this  is  the 
better  mind  of  the  man,  and  being  the  better  mind  of  a  most 
able  man,  I  confess  the  reading  of  that  statute  did  influence 
me  in  that  arrangement  I  have  proposed,  with  regard  to  the 
income  tax,  respecting  the  "  poor  clerks  "  which  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  has  so  severely  criticised.  And 
remember  what  has  happened  to  the  "  poor  clerks  "  since  1834, 
when  this  statute  was  drawn  ;  remember  all  the  reductions 
of  taxation  which  have  been  effected  since  that  time,  and  of 
which  the  poor  clerk  has  had  the  benefit.  Remember  the 
repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  Look  at  the  position  of  the  "  poor 
clerk  "  with  £110  a  year,  who  has  a  double  superannuation 
tax  placed  upon  him  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  ; 
and  look  at  his  position  now.  I  say,  without  hesitation,  that 
I  do  not  believe,  that  the  condition  of  any  class  has  since  that 
time  been  so  much  improved  as  that  of  the  clerks  whose 
salaries  range  between  £100  and  £150  a  year. 

Well,  having  decided  that  it  was  necessary,  before  we  under- 
took the  great  labour  which  we  felt  it  our  duty  to  embark  in, 
that  we  should  have  a  certain  amount  of  direct  taxation  to 
rest  upon  ;  having  determined  that  we  should  make  this  differ- 
ence in  the  assessment  in  the  schedules  between  realised  and 
precarious  incomes,  which  must  inevitably  reduce  the  amount 
of  direct  taxation  from  that  source  which  our  predecessors 
enjoyed  ;  having  believed  that  we  had  attempted  to  supply 
the  necessary  amount  by  our  proposition  with  respect  to  the 
house  tax  in  a  manner  which  was  reasonable  ;  which  was 
just ;     which    was    on    the    whole    most    beneficial    to    the 


BEACONSFIELD  125 

community  ;  which  in  its  operation  would  ultimately  tend  to 
confer  advantages  on  those  on  whom  the  tax  was  to  be  imposed  ; 
having  by  this  measure,  if  successful,  succeeded  in  obtaining 
the  amount  of  direct  taxation  which  was  necessary,  but  which 
was  still  inferior  in  amount  to  that  which  only  a  few  years 
ago  had  been  enjoyed  by  our  predecessors,  we  had  to  decide 
upon  which  of  the  five  groups  of  taxation  we  should  operate. 
Recognising — I  am  obliged  to  repeat  it — recognising  the  great 
and  permanent  revolution  which  has  occurred  in  the  commercial 
system  of  this  country  ;  recognising,  as  we  have  done,  unre- 
stricted competition  as  the  principle  on  which  our  commercial 
policy  is  henceforth  to  be  based  ;  and  wishing  to  assimilate 
our  financial  to  our  commercial  system,  and  assuming  that  we 
had  obtained  this  amount  of  direct  taxation  to  rest  upon,  we 
ultimately  decided  that  it  would  be  the  wisest  course  to  com- 
mence by  acting  upon  those  articles  which  entered  most  into 
the  consumption  of  the  people,  and  that  it  would  be  for  their 
salutory  advantage  if  we  selected  those  articles  which  were 
subjected  to  the  largest  impost.  Now  that  is  the  real  history 
of  the  connection  between  the  imposition  of  direct,  and  the 
remission  of  indirect  taxes,  as  they  appear  in  the  propositions 
before  us.  Under  these  circumstances  we  were  induced  to 
recommend  to  the  House  the  proposition  which  we  have  made 
with  respect  to  the  tea  and  malt  duties. 

Sir,  at  this  late  hour,  I  will  endeavour  to  be  as  succinct  as 
possible,  and  wiU  not,  therefore,  go  into  the  question  of  the 
reduction  of  the  tea  duties.  I  think  the  House  and  the  country 
have  recognised  the  wisdom  of  the  course  we  have  recom- 
mended. Neither  at  this  late  hour  will  I  enter  into  an  elaborate 
argument  on  the  subject  of  the  effect  which  will  be  produced 
by  the  modification  of  the  malt  tax.  I  am  told  that  if  you 
reduce  the  tax  on  the  consumer,  and  only  as  a  tax  on 
the  consumer — and  to  that  point  I  shall  advert  presently, 
as  being  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  principles  laid  down  in 
our  revision  of  the  taxation — on  one  article  to  the  extent  of 
£2,500,000  sterling,  we  shall  not  in  any  way  affect  price, 
and  that  all  the  reductions  will  go  to  the  brewer.  Sir, 
I  remember  when  we  used  to  discuss  the  effect  of  taxation  on 
another  article,  that  similar  observations  were  made.  I  do 
not  care  now  to  remember  from  what  quarter  they  emanated, 
but  the  effect  and  object  of  these  observations  were  exactly 


126  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  same.  Then  it  was,  "  Oh,  those  villains,  the  bakers  !  " 
just  as  now  it  is  to  be,  "  Oh,  those  villains,  the  brewers  !  " 
You  might  reduce  the  price  of  corn  ;  you  might  injure  the 
agricultural  interest ;  you  might  ruin  the  farmers  and  the 
country  gentlemen,  but  you  could  not  reduce  the  price  of  the 
loaf  to  the  consumer.  No,  the  bakers  took  it  all.  Yes,  and 
there  were  the  millers  too.  The  millers  were  the  worst  of  all ; 
they  carried  off  all  the  reduction.  Well,  those  arguments  had 
a  considerable  effect,  and  there  was  such  a  prejudice  raised 
against  the  bakers  throughout  the  country  that  I  should  not 
have  been  surprised  if  they  had  all  been  hanged  in  one  day, 
as  the  bakers  had  once  been  in  Constantinople.  At  that  time 
it  used  to  be  shown  that  a  fall  of  10s.  a  quarter  on  wheat  would 
not  affect  the  price  of  bread,  and  we  were  told  that  the  bakers 
then,  like  the  brewers  now,  were  a  great  monopoly — if  not 
great  capitalists — they  were  a  kind  of  Freemasons,  and,  do 
what  you  would,  it  would  be  totally  impossible  in  any  way 
ever  to  get  a  cheap  loaf.  And  now,  such  are  the  vicissitudes 
of  pubhc  life — now  we  hear  the  same  argument  from  those 
gentlemen  who  used  to  dilate  so  eloquently  on  the  necessity 
of  buying  in  the  cheapest  and  selhng  in  the  dearest  market. 
The  great  friends  of  the  consumer  ;  the  enemies  of  colossal 
monopolies  ;  here  we  find  them  all  arrayed  in  favour  of  high 
taxation  for  the  producer,  and  here  we  find  them,  with  taunts 
to  us,  teaching  all  the  fallacies  which  we  at  least  have  had  the 
courage  to  give  up.  Tell  me  protection  is  dead  !  Tell  me  there 
is  no  protectionist  party  in  the  country  !  Why,  'tis  rampant, 
and  'tis  there  !  They  have  taken  up  our  principles  with  our 
benches,  and  I  beheve  they  will  be  quite  as  unsuccessful. 

I  must  here  make  one  observation.  I  say  it  is  in  the  interest 
of  the  consumer,  in  complete  accordance  with  the  principles 
we  laid  down  in  revising  the  taxation  of  the  country,  that  we 
have  proposed  this  measure  ;  but  I  do  not  say  it  will  not  be 
for  the  interest  of  the  cultivator  of  the  soil,  any  more  than  I 
think  that  by  remitting  the  duty  on  tea  we  have  not  done  that 
which  will  greatly  promote  the  welfare  of  our  Indian  commerce 
and  our  China  trade.  But  we  do  not  bring  forward  those 
propositions  in  that  sense  ;  for  the  advantage  of  the  mercan- 
tile interest  of  India,  or  for  the  benefit  of  our  trade  with  China. 
Let  the  farmers — or  even  those  odious  beings,  the  owners  of 
the  soil — have  the  benefits  of  this  legislation  just  the  same  as 


BEACONSFIELD  127 

you  admit  the  manufacturer  of  Manchester  or  the  merchant 
of  Liverpool  to  find  in  his  transactions  the  advantage  of 
reducing  the  price  of  bread  or  the  price  of  tea.  What  we  say 
is  this  :  Deal  with  the  interest  of  the  consumer,  and  incident- 
ally you  will  find  that  you  are  producing  the  greatest  advantage 
to  the  great  productive  interests  of  the  country.  But,  Sir, 
I  am  told  that  in  repealing  a  portion  of  the  malt  tax — not- 
withstanding that  I  showed  you  in  my  statement  how  modestly 
I  have  put  the  resources  of  the  country — I  have  shaken  to  its 
foundation  the  credit  of  England.  The  credit  of  England 
depends  on  a  farthing  a  pot  on  the  poor  man's  beer  !  Never 
shall  I  forget  how  that  "  weird  Sibyl,"  the  Member  for  Cam- 
bridge University,  gave  forth  that  solemn  oracle — "  The  public 
credit  of  England  is  in  danger." 

I  doubt  whether  such  mere  personal  imputations  and  wide 
assertions  are  quite  justifiable.  He  says  the  pubhc  credit  is 
in  danger.  Well,  I  don't  think  it  is.  I  think  public  credit 
never  was  in  a  better  position  ;  I  never  remember  any  period 
in  the  history  of  this  country  when  her  resources  were,  I  may 
say,  daily  so  visibly  increasing.  I  will  not  now,  Sir,  enter  into 
any  discussion  as  to  the  cause  of  that  prosperity — whether 
it  be  due  to  the  influx  of  gold,  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws, 
to  emigration,  or  to  anything  else  :  though.  Sir,  as  to  emigra- 
tion, there  was  one  point  in  the  speech  of  the  honourable  Member 
for  Kidderminster  to  which  I  ought  to  make,  perhaps,  some 
reference.  I  hold  the  opinion  of  the  honourable  Member  for 
Kidderminster  to  be  quite  as  heretical  on  emigration  as  it  is 
upon  brewing  and  upon  malt.  I  repeat  that  I  am  very  glad 
to  find  him  here  among  us  ;  but  all  the  opinions  I  have  heard 
from  him  yet  appear  to  be  anything  but  sound.  I  continue 
in  that  opinion.  In  the  first  place  the  honourable  gentleman 
confounded  Ireland  and  England  ;  though,  I,  at  considerable 
pains,  and  perhaps  not  necessarily,  showed  the  distinction 
between  them  the  other  night.  As  to  England,  it  will  be 
interesting  to  honourable  members  to  be  made  acquainted 
with  a  passage  from  a  letter  written  by  an  eminent  actuary 
and  perhaps  our  ablest  statistical  inquirer.  His  name  is  well 
known  to  the  honourable  Member  for  Montrose,  for  he  gave 
important  evidence  before  the  Committee  on  the  income  tax. 
"  The  rate,"  he  says,  "  of  births  and  marriages  has  greatly 
increased  in  this  country,  and  I  think  emigration  may  facilitate 


128  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  rate  rather  than  impede  it.  The  reserve  of  producing 
power  which  we  have  in  this  country  " — that  is  a  point  I  wish 
to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  honourable  Member  for  Kidder- 
minster. He  has  hved  abroad  in  a  country  with  a  sparse 
population,  and  he  has  no  idea  of  the  reserve  of  producing 
power  we  have  here.  But  he  goes  on  :  "  The  reserve  of 
producing  power  which  we  have  in  this  country  you  may 
infer  from  the  fact  that  in  the  south-eastern  counties  to  100 
married  women  of  ages  between  twenty  and  forty-five  there 
are  seventy  women  of  the  same  age — that  is  from  twenty  to 
forty-five — unmarried,  of  whom  only  about  seven  bear 
children  notwithstanding." 

Now,  I  have  confidence  in  the  reserve  of  producing  power, 
which  I  think  the  honourable  member,  with  his  colonial 
experience,  had  not  given  sufficient  credit  to  us  for.  Now, 
Sir,  our  opinion  is,  that  under  the  arrangements  which  we  have 
recommended,  the  surplus  revenue  of  the  country  will  be  very 
considerable  at  the  end  of  the  year  1854-55.  But,  Sir,  I  look 
to  other  resources  for  that  year  than  to  increasing  profits  or 
to  the  increased  population  of  this  country,  and  I  will  mention 
what  they  are.  I  look  to  a  great  retrenchment  in  the  public 
expenditure  of  this  country  ;  and  I  will,  if  the  Conamittee 
allow  me,  advert  for  one  moment  to  this  topic.  I  believe  that 
any  great  retrenchment  can  only  be  secured  by  consulting  the 
efficiency  of  our  establishments,  and  trusting  to  the  economy 
which  is  the  natural  consequence  of  that  efficiency.  I  do  not 
think  it  possible  that  the  result  can  be  reaped  till  1854-55.  I 
hope  the  House  will  permit  me  very  shortly  to  show  to  them, 
by  a  remarkable  illustration,  what  is  the  result  of  administra- 
tive reforms  conducted  on  the  principle  of  efficiency  without 
any  regard  to  what  is  called  mere  economy.  I,  in  my  estimate 
of  the  effects  of  administrative  reform,  should  have  spoken  of 
millions  ;  but  I  am  now  going  to  deal  with  an  instance  in  which 
only  thousands  of  pounds  are  concerned  ;  but  the  case  I  am 
about  to  lay  before  you  is  a  real  case  which,  however  sHght  in 
instance,  wiU  serve  to  show  the  principle.  It  is  due  to  my 
noble  friend  the  Member  for  Buckingham  (the  Marquis  of 
Chandos)  to  say  that  I  am  entirely  indebted  to  him  for  the  case 
in  question  ;  and  I  may  most  sincerely  say  of  him  that  since 
he  has  been  in  the  service  of  Her  Majesty,  there  never  was  a 
public  man  who  devoted  his  life  so  completely  to  the  public 


BEACONSFIELD  129 

service.  In  preparing  the  measures  of  administrative  reform 
which  I  wish  to  bring  before  the  House,  and  in  making  a  cata- 
logue of  the  establishments  to  be  attended  to,  I  found  in  the 
Report  of  the  Select  Committee  of  1848  upon  Miscellaneous 
Expenditure,  of  which  I  believe  an  honourable  member 
opposite  was  the  chairman,  this  memorandiun — "  Whether  a 
reform  might  not  be  effected  by  uniting  the  Chief  Secretary's 
Office  in  Ireland  with  the  Privy  Council  Office."  That  sug- 
gestion was  made  in  1848.  I  called  the  attention  of  my  noble 
friend  the  Member  for  Buckingham  to  this  passage,  and  I 
said,  "  Will  you  go  to  Ireland,  and  will  you  take  somebody 
with  you  to  aid  you  in  your  labours,  and  examine  into  this 
question  of  the  Chief  Secretary's  Office  in  Ireland  with  the 
Privy  Council  Office  ?  But,  mind  you,  mere  retrenchment  is 
not  our  object ;  our  object  is  efficiency.  If  more  money  is 
necessary  to  make  the  department  efficient,  you  shall  have  it ; 
but  go  to  Ireland,  examine  into  the  whole  question,  and  report 
to  me  by  what  means  you  can  render  the  office  more  efficient." 

Well,  Sir,  he  went  to  Ireland,  accompanied  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Audit  Board,  one  of  the  most  intelligent  and  assiduous 
of  our  public  officers.  They  made  their  inquiries  into  the  Chief 
Secretary's  Office  at  Dublin.  Remember  that  by  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  of  1848  it  was  suggested  whether  the  con- 
solidation of  the  Chief  Secretary's  Office  and  the  Privy  Council 
Office  would  not  be  practicable.  My  noble  friend,  however, 
effected  a  consohdation,  not  only  of  the  Chief  Secretary's  Office 
and  the  Privy  Council  Office,  but  of  the  Fines  and  Penalties 
Office.  He  had  to  deal  with  departments  maintained  at  an 
annual  cost  of  £21,738.  He  put  the  whole  office  into  the  most 
efficient  state  that  a  public  office  can  be  in,  and  the  consequence 
of  its  being  put  into  a  most  efficient  state  is,  that  the  cost  of 
;^2 1,738  has  been  reduced  by  the  sum  of  £5,178.  Thus  the 
saving  effected  by  an  inquiry  conducted  without  any  other 
consideration  but  that  of  efficiency  produced  a  saving  of  25  per 
cent,  upon  the  original  cost ;  and  yet  I  am  told  that  nothing 
can  be  done  in  administrative  reforms.  I  must,  in  justice  to 
my  noble  friend,  notice  another  instance. 

My  noble  friend  is  of  a  too  retiring  nature  :  there  are  very 
few  men  more  capable  of  imparting  information  to  the  House, 
especially  upon  matters  of  finance  ;  but  he  takes  refuge 
instead  in  that  indomitable  power  of  application  for  which  he 

9— (a  1 71) 


130  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

is  distinguished.  There  was  an  apphcation  made,  and  appa* 
rently  a  very  fair  one,  by  the  office  of  the  Secretary  at  War, 
when  the  Mihtia  Bill  was  passed,  for  an  increase  of  staff. 
There  was,  of  course,  a  very  considerable  increase  of  duty  in 
the  office  consequent  upon  the  new  measure,  and  it  was  just 
one  of  those  demands  which  might  have  been  conceded  heed- 
lessly, and  which  anyone,  upon  a  superficial  view  of  the  case, 
might  have  readily  accorded.  But  I,  having  great  confidence 
in  the  principle  of  administrative  reform  and  equal  confidence 
in  the  abilities  of  my  noble  friend,  before  we  agreed  to  any 
increase  of  expenditure,  requested  him  to  appoint  a  committee 
of  inquiry,  which  he  did  with  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  the  Secretary  of  the  Audit  Board  and  a  gentleman 
not  now  a  member  of  this  House,  for  whom  I  have  a  great 
respect,  the  present  Deputy  Secretary  at  War,  Mr.  Hawes. 
The  committee  examined  the  subject,  and  put  the  office  into 
a  most  efficient  state,  and  the  whole  of  the  additional  business 
is  carried  on  without  one  farthing  of  additional  expense.  In 
the  case  of  the  Irish  Office  the  persons  employed  were  reduced 
from  fifty-seven  to  forty.  But  allow  me  to  remind  the  House 
that  retrenchment  was  not  the  object,  although  economy  was 
the  result.  Efficiency  was  the  object,  and  it  was  effected  at 
a  saving  of  expense.  These  are,  some  may  think,  minute 
instances,  but  they  are  instances  well  worthy  of  attention. 
The  Government  have  been  dealing,  however,  with  much  larger 
instances.  They  have  been  attempting  to  deal  with  the  great 
departments  of  pubhc  expenditure  ;  and,  as  the  results  of 
that  attempt,  I,  as  the  organ  of  the  Government,  express  our 
opinion  that  there  may  be  a  very  considerable  retrenchment 
made  in  the  pubhc  expenditure,  and  that  this  retrenchment 
may  be  brought  to  bear  in  the  year  1854-55.  But,  Sir,  one 
thing  is  quite  clear — that  you  cannot  embark  in  an  under- 
taking of  this  kind  unless  you  have  the  fair  support  of  the  House 
of  Commons. 

Now,  my  own  opinion  is  this — ^that  it  is  not  wise  to  grapple 
with  these  great  departments  of  public  expenditure  by  com- 
mittees of  the  House  of  Commons.  I  am  of  opinion  that  you 
must  deal  with  them  by  commissions — the  same  commissions 
that  have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  revenue  departments  ; 
but,  although  we  may  have  commissions  and  the  royal  sanction, 
it  is  necessary  that  the  questions  should  be  fairly  brought 


BEACONSFIELD  131 

before  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  way  of  exposition,  so  that 
you  should  also  have  the  moral  sanction  and  support  of  the 
House.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  most  difficult  undertaking  which 
a  minister  can  embark  in  ;  and  unless  he  has,  I  may  say, 
both  the  Crown  and  Parliament  to  back  him,  failure  is  certain, 
though  with  that  support  I  think  success  is  equally  sure.  Well 
then,  when  I  am  told  that  I  have  no  good  ground  for  my  sur- 
plus of  1854-55,  my  answer  is  that  I  believe  we  shall  have  much 
more  than  the  surplus  which  I  cursorily  ventured  upon  in  my 
general  statement.  I  teU  you  that  we  have  other  resources 
upon  which  we  depend,  and  that  I  believe  it  will  be  the  fault 
of  the  House  of  Commons  if,  in  the  year  1854-55,  they  do  not 
find  their  public  service  more  efficient  than  it  is,  and  less  costly. 
I  think  I  have  now  noticed  every  objection  of  importance 
which  has  been  brought  against  the  Government  propositions. 
I  have  avoided  entering  into  the  question  as  to  the  uncon- 
stitutionality of  our  conduct  with  respect  to  the  income  tax. 
Legitimate  opportunities  will  hereafter  arise  for  commenting 
upon  all  that  may  be  said  upon  this  head,  and  the  House  will, 
I  doubt  not,  come  to  a  fair  decision  upon  it. 

Although  many  minute  objections  have  been  made  to  points 
of  detail,  I  have  not  stopped  to  notice  these  ;  I  have  not 
stopped  to  vindicate  that  part  of  the  income  tax  relating  to 
the  farmers'  schedule.  I  shall  be  prepared  to  lay  before  the 
Committee  the  facts  and  reasons  which  have  induced  us  to 
take  that  course  ;  but  I  may  state  now  that  our  only  object 
was  to  make  as  close  an  approximation  to  justice  as  possible, 
and  I  will  not  vote  for  that  schedule  if  it  is  not  the  prevaihng 
feeling  of  the  House  that  it  is  a  just  arrangement.  I  wiU  not 
enter  now  into  the  question  of  the  hop  duty  and  things  of  that 
kind.  After  so  protracted  a  debate,  and  following  so  many 
speakers  who  commented  upon  so  many  points  in  the  financial 
scheme  of  the  Government,  I  hope  the  Committee  will  feel 
that  if  I  have  avoided  some  of  those  points,  it  has  been  from 
deference  to  the  time  of  the  House,  and  not  from  any  wish 
of  my  own  to  avoid  the  discussion.  But  some  advice  has  been 
offered  to  me  which  I  ought,  perhaps,  to  notice.  I  have  been 
told  to  withdraw  my  Budget.  I  was  told  that  Mr.  Pitt  with- 
drew his  Budget,  and  I  know  that  more  recently  other  persons 
have  done  so  too.  Sir,  I  do  not  aspire  to  the  fame  of  Mr.  Pitt, 
but  I  will  not  submit  to  the  degradation  of  others.     No,  Sir  ; 


132  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

I  have  seen  the  consequences  of  a  Government  not  being  able 
to  pass  their  measures — consequences  not  honourable  to  the 
Government,  not  advantageous  to  the  country,  and  not  in 
my  opinion  conducive  to  the  reputation  of  this  House,  which 
is  most  dear  to  me. 

I  remember  a  Budget  which  was  withdrawn,  and  re- with- 
drawn, and  withdrawn  again  in  the  year  1848.  What  was  the 
consequence  of  that  Government  thus  existing  upon  sufferance  ? 
What  was  the  consequence  to  the  finances  of  the  country  ? 
Why,  that  injurious,  unjust  and  ignoble  transaction  respecting 
the  commutation  of  the  window  tax  and  house  duty,  which 
now  I  am  obliged  to  attempt  to  remedy.  The  grievance  is 
deeper  than  mere  questions  of  party  consideration.  When 
parties  are  balanced — when  a  Government  cannot  pass  its 
measures — the  highest  principles  of  public  life,  the  most 
important  of  the  dogmas  of  pohtics,  degenerate  into  party 
questions.  Look  at  this  question  of  direct  taxation — the  most 
important  question  of  the  day.  It  is  a  question  which  must 
sooner  or  later  force  itself  upon  everybody's  attention  ;  and 
I  see  before  me  many  who  I  know  sympathise,  so  far  as  that 
important  principle  is  concerned,  with  the  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment. Well,  direct  taxation,  although  applied  with  wisdom, 
temperance  and  prudence,  has  become  a  party  question. 
Talk  of  administrative  reform  !  Talk  of  issuing  commissions 
to  inquire  into  our  docykards  !  Why,  if  I  were,  which  is  not 
impossible,  by  intense  labour  to  bring  forward  a  scheme  which 
might  save  a  million  annually  to  the  country,  administrative 
reform  would  become  a  party  question  to-morrow.  Yes ! 
I  know  what  I  have  to  face.  I  have  to  face  a  coalition.  The 
combination  may  be  successful.  But  coalitions,  although 
successful,  have  always  found  this,  that  their  triumph  has 
been  short.  This,  too,  I  know,  that  England  does  not  love 
coalitions.  I  appeal  from  the  coalition  to  the  pubhc  opinion 
which  governs  this  country — to  that  public  opinion  whose  mild 
and  irresistible  influence  can  control  even  the  decrees  of 
Parliaments,  and  without  whose  support  the  most  august 
and  ancient  institutions  are  but  "  the  baseless  fabric  of  a 
vision." 


ARCHBISHOP  MAGEE 

William  Connor  Magee  was  Bishop  of  Peterborough  when 
he  deUvered  his  famous  speech  against  the  disestabhshment  of 
the  Irish  Church.  As  a  masterpiece  of  eloquence,  it  took  the 
House  of  Lords  by  surprise,  abnost  by  storm.  Magee,  who 
had  very  recently  become  an  English  bishop,  had  long  been 
known  in  Ireland  as  a  powerful  and  popular  preacher  of  the 
Evangelical  school.  This  was  not,  perhaps,  a  training  likely 
to  result  in  Parliamentary  success.  But  Magee,  in  spite 
of  his  rhetorical  exuberance,  had  a  keenly  logical  mind.  His 
Irish  humour  was  accompanied  by  a  practical  shrewdness 
which  prevented  him  from  overstepping  the  limits  of  modera- 
tion and  good  sense.  His  subsequent  career  in  the  House  of 
Lords  did  not  indeed  repeat  the  extraordinary  triumph  of 
1869.  The  circumstances  of  the  time  and  of  the  man  must  be 
taken  into  account.  The  question  of  the  Irish  Church  had 
aroused  on  both  sides  an  extraordinary  amount  of  feeling. 
Magee,  having  been  lately  transferred  from  the  ecclesiastical 
establishment  of  his  own  country  to  the  ecclesiastical  establish- 
ment of  this,  occupied  an  advantageous  position.  It  was  as 
the  chivalrous  champion  of  the  institution  in  which  he  had  been 
bred,  and  from  which  he  had  emerged,  that  he  came  forward 
to  attack  the  Bill.  His  speech  is  argumentative  as  well  as 
denunciatory,  historical  as  well  as  controversial,  a  defence  as 
well  as  an  assault.  The  position  was  not  an  easy  one.  The 
Church  of  Ireland,  which  had  been  annexed  to  the  Church  of 
England  by  the  Act  of  Union,  ministered  to  a  small  minority 
of  the  population.  The  great  majority  of  Irishmen  were  Roman 
Catholics,  and  an  appreciable  portion  of  Irish  Protestants  were 
Presbyterians.  A  General  Election  had  just  been  held,  at 
which  the  subject  had  been  thoroughly  discussed,  and  a  large 

133 


134  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

majority,  a  majority  in  each  of  the  three  kingdoms,  had 
pronounced  for  Irish  disestablishment.  In  such  circumstances 
the  defence  of  the  Irish  Estabhshment  was  not  an  easy  one,  and 
Magee's  triumph  was  proportionately  great. 


The  Disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church 

My  Lords,  in  rising  to  address  your  Lordships,  I  do  so  with 
feelings  of  the  very  deepest  anxiety,  and  with  unfeigned 
diffidence,  owing  to  my  having  become  so  recently  a  Member 
of  your  Lordships'  House,  and  my  natural  fear  in  taking  part 
in  so  great  a  discussion  as  this,  that  I  may,  by  some  careless 
word  of  mine,  rather  damage  than  advance  the  cause  which 
I  seek  to  support.  Still  there  is  one  great  encouragement  I 
feel — it  is  a  thought  that  has  been  present  to  my  mind  through 
all  this  debate — that  is,  that  I  have  the  privilege  of  addressing 
an  assembly  in  which  freedom  of  speech  is  still  permitted  to 
its  members.  I  have  heard  much,  my  Lords,  since  I  have  had 
the  honour  of  being  a  Member  of  your  Lordships'  House,  and 
I  have  read  something,  about  the  antiquated  prejudices  which 
still  haunt  it,  but  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  other  House  ; 
but  among  those  antiquated  prejudices  I  rejoice  to  see  that 
your  Lordships  still  retain  the  notion  that  a  deliberative 
assembly  should  be  allowed  to  deliberate.  I  have  no  fear, 
my  Lords,  at  least  upon  this  point — that  if  the  remarks  which 
I  venture  to  make  should  be  distasteful  to  some  of  your  Lord- 
ships, I  shall  be  at  least  free  to  make  them.  I  am  reminded 
that  your  political  education  is  imperfect ;  but  I  am  glad  to 
find  that  you  have  not  yet  adopted  the  most  recent  form  of 
Parliamentary  cloture,  which  simply  consists  in  howling  down 
the  person  who  takes  the  unpopular  side  in  a  debate.  I  regret 
that  in  the  first  few  words  I  have  spoken  I  should  have  called 
forth  expressions  of  dissent ;  but  I  think  I  am  justified  in 
describing  what  I  think  I  saw  and  heard  in  what  I  do  not 
venture  to  call  another  House,  but  a  public  meeting  in  which 
there  were  present  a  great  many  Members  of  Parliament. 

I  have  no  intention  of  detaining  your  Lordships  at  any 
length  on  some  of  the  very  minor  issues  that  have  been  raised 
in  this  controversy  ;    and  the  less  so  because  I  am  ready  to 


MAGEE  135 

admit  that  on  those  points  all  the  strength  of  the  argument 
lies  with  the  supporters  of  this  measure.  I  am  free  to  confess 
that  I  cannot  regard  this  Bill  as  a  proposal  to  violate  the 
Coronation  Oath.  The  Coronation  Oath  seems  to  me  to  be 
the  seal  of  a  compact  between  two  parties  ;  and  I  cannot 
understand  how,  because  one  of  the  parties  appeals  to  the 
Divine  judgment  to  punish  a  breach  of  the  compact,  both 
parties  may  not  agree  to  an  alteration  of  the  compact.  In 
the  second  place,  I  cannot  regard  this  measure  as  a  violation 
of  the  Act  of  Union.  I  regard  the  Act  of  Union  as  a  treaty,  not 
merely  between  two  Legislatures,  the  members  of  which  may 
be,  and  for  the  most  part  are,  no  longer  in  existence,  but  as  a 
compact  between  two  nations  which  still  exist,  and  which 
have  a  right  to  modify  the  terms  of  the  treaty  mutually  agreed 
on  between  them.  Neither  can  I  regard  this  measure  as  an 
attack  on  private  property.  I  cannot  but  entirely  accept  the 
distinction  drawn  by  the  noble  and  learned  Lord  last  night 
between  corporate  and  private  property.  I  cannot  regard 
the  property  of  the  Irish  Church  as  private  property,  because 
it  seems  to  land  me  in  this  absurdity — that  it  would  be  a  matter 
of  entire  indifference  what  were  the  numbers  of  the  Irish 
Church,  whether  large  or  small,  and  that  if,  instead  of  700,000, 
they  were  70,000,  or  7,000,  they  would  still  have  a  right  in 
the  same  property.  I,  therefore,  willingly  accept  the  noble 
and  learned  Lord's  distinction  between  corporate  and  private 
property.  But  I  go  further — I  not  only  accept  that  distinc- 
tion but  I  insist  upon  it  as  the  very  ground  on  which  I 
entreat  your  Lordships  to  be  very  cautious  how  the  property 
of  the  Irish  Church  is  dealt  with.  It  is  quite  true  that  cor- 
porate property  is  different  from  private  property.  It  is  not 
private  property,  neither,  on  the  other  hand,  is  it  absolutely 
and  simply  public  property  in  the  same  sense  as  property 
derived  from  the  taxation  of  the  country.  Corporate  property 
is  partly  private  and  partly  public — public  in  its  uses  and  the 
conditions  on  which  it  is  held,  and  private  as  regards  the 
persons  who  are  interested  in  it.  This  is  the  reason  why  it 
appears  to  me  to  be  very  perilous  to  meddle  with  corporate 
property  ;  because,  in  its  pubhc  character,  it  invites  attack, 
and  by  its  partly  private  character  endangers  all  private 
property,  if  the  conditions  on  which  the  corporation  holds  its 
property  be  unjustly  or  unfairly  dealt  with.     And  for  this 


136  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

reason  you  will  always  observe  in  history  that  corporate 
property  is  the  first  to  be  attacked  in  all  great  democratic 
revolutions.  Especially  is  this  so  in  the  case  of  ecclesiastical 
corporate  property,  because  ecclesiatical  corporations  for  the 
most  part  are  very  wealthy,  and,  at  the  same  time,  are  weak. 
It  is  easy  to  find  a  flaw  in  their  titles  ;  and  religious  corpora- 
tions charged  with  the  religious  culture  of  a  nation,  or  of  any 
part  of  a  nation,  are  always  easy  to  attack  because  they  must 
always,  more  or  less,  fail,  and  it  can,  therefore,  be  always  alleged 
that  they  have  failed  in  the  performance  of  their  duty.  There- 
fore I  say  that  religious  property  is  always  the  first  to  be 
assailed  in  revolutions.  Revolutions  commence  with  sacrilege 
and  go  on  to  communism  ;  or,  to  put  it  in  the  more  gentle 
and  euphemistic  language  of  the  day,  revolutions  begin  with  the 
Church  and  go  on  to  the  land.  For  these  reasons — not  because 
the  property  of  the  Irish  Church  is  not  corporate  property — 
I  would  ask  you  to  guard  it  with  special  jealousy  from  any 
attack  which  may  be  made  upon  it. 

But  "passing  from  these  minor  issues  in  the  controversy,  I 
do  feel  that  there  are  larger  and  deeper  questions  at  stake  than 
these.  I  believe  that  the  great  question  of  justice  or  injustice 
really  underlies  the  whole  of  this  question.  I  believe,  my 
Lords,  that  far  below  these  merely  superficial  questions  of 
ascendency  or  sentimental  grievance,  or  the  badge  of  conquest 
— I  do  believe  that  deep  in  the  EngUsh  heart  lies  this  great 
thought  above  all  others — that  the  Irish  Church  is  an  injustice  ; 
therefore  it  must  be  done  away  with.  I  desire  to  meet  this 
plea  fully  and  fairly  ;  and  I  desire  to  say  for  myself,  so  lately 
a  member  of  that  Church — that  we  re-echo  the  words  the  Prime 
Minister  used  with  reference  to  this  Bill ;  and  we  say  if  the 
Irish  Church  be  less  than  a  justice,  then,  in  God's  name,  let  it 
perish.  The  three  great  issues  that  have  been  raised  in  this 
debate,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  follow  it,  have  been,  first 
of  all,  that  this  is  a  question  of  justice  ;  secondly,  that  it  is 
a  question  of  policy  ;  and,  thirdly,  that  it  is  in  accordance 
with  the  verdict  of  the  nation.  With  all  respect,  I  venture  to 
join  issue  upon  every  one  of  these  three  pleas.  I  say  dis- 
tinctly that  justice  does  not  demand  this  measure,  that  policy 
does  not  require  it,  that  the  verdict  of  the  country  has  not 
only  not  gone  in  its  favour,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the 
measure  in  the  greater  part  of  its  details  seems  to  me  to  be  in 


MAGEE  137 

direct  and  flagrant  contradiction  to  the  verdict  of  the  country. 
In  arguing  these  three  pleas,  I  shall  endeavour  to  consider 
each  of  them  by  itself  and  separately.  I  shall  not  attempt 
to  mix  them  together  according  as  may  suit  the  exigencies 
of  my  argument,  because  I  observe  that  in  discussing  this 
measure,  people  very  often  fail  to  take  them  alone.  We  are 
told,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Irish  Church  is  a  grievous 
injustice  because  it  possesses  property  that  was  wrongfully 
taken  from  the  Roman  Catholics.  We  try  to  answer  this 
argument,  and  endeavour  to  show  that  this  property  was  never 
in  the  possession  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  we 
appeal  to  the  ancient  history  of  the  Irish  Church  to  show  it. 
But  when  we  are  doing  that  we  are  told — "  What  is  the  use 
of  this  reference  to  old  doctrinal  history  ?  It  does  not  matter 
in  the  least  whether  the  Irish  Church  was  Protestant  or  not 
in  the  days  of  St.  Patrick  ;  at  the  present  moment  it  is  a  mis- 
chief and  a  nuisance,  and  there  can  be  no  pacification  of  Ireland 
until  we  get  rid  of  it."  When  we  turn  to  the  argument  of 
policy  and  endeavour  to  show  that  the  sweeping  away  the 
Irish  Church  will  not  pacify  Ireland,  and  that  it  will  dissatisfy 
one  part  of  the  Irish  nation  without  satisfying  the  other — 
what  is  the  answer  ?  "  Oh,  we  never  thought,  we  never 
dreamt,  that  this  measure  would  pacify  Ireland — we  are  quite 
aware  it  will  not ;  but  we  must  clear  our  own  consciences ; 
it  is  a  high  question  of  justice — fiat  justitia,  ruat  ccelum  1  " 
Lastly,  when  we  maintain  that  this  is  neither  a  measure  of 
justice  nor  a  measure  of  policy,  we  are  told  that  there  is  a 
good  deal  to  be  said  on  that  side  of  the  question  ;  but  that  the 
time  for  saying  it  has  gone  by  ;  that  the  verdict  of  the  country 
has  spoken,  and  we  had  better  submit  ourselves  to  the  will 
of  the  nation.  I  will  not  attempt  to  imitate  that  mode  of 
argument,  but  will  take  each  plea  separately.  In  the  first 
place,  then,  as  to  the  plea  that  the  Irish  Church  is  an  injustice, 
the  arguments  used  in  its  support  are  simply  two — one,  the 
great  argument  of  religious  equality,  and  the  other,  the  argu- 
ment that  the  Irish  Church  is  the  Church  of  the  minority. 
Now,  my  Lords,  as  I  understand  the  argument  in  respect  to 
absolute  rehgious  equality,  it  is  this — that  the  conferring  by 
the  State  upon  one  sect  in  the  country  any  special  favour  or 
privilege  over  other  sects  is  an  injustice,  inasmuch  as  no  one 
sect  is  more  entitled  to  endowment  or  privilege  than  another  ; 


138  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

as  special  favour  is  conferred  upon  the  Irish  Church,  it  is  a 
violation  of  the  principle  of  rehgious  equality.  It  is  no  reply,  I 
admit,  to  say  that  this  principle  of  religious  equality  applies 
equally  to  England.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  it  does  apply 
equally  to  England  as  to  Ireland — unless,  indeed,  we  are  ready 
to  perpetrate  injustice  in  England  because  we  are  strong  and 
Dissent  is  weak  ;  but  that  we  will  not  venture  to  do  it  in  Ire- 
land because  we  are  weak  there,  and  those  who  differ  from  the 
Church  are  strong.  It  is,  in  fact,  convenient  now  to  tell  us 
that  the  principle  applies  to  the  English  as  well  as  to  the  Irish 
Church  ;  but  I  may  remark  that  it  was  not  quite  so  convenient 
to  say  so  last  October.  I  distinctly  admit  that  if  the  favour 
shown  to  any  sect  be  shown  for  the  sake  of  that  sect,  and  that 
alone,  there  is  a  manifest  injustice  in  the  endowment  of  that 
sect  in  preference  to  others.  But  I  deny  that  this  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  religious  Establishments  at  aU.  The  endowment 
given  to  the  sect,  my  Lords,  is  not  given  for  the  benefit  of  the 
sect,  but  for  the  benefit  of  the  State.  It  is  not  with  a  view 
to  make  the  sect  richer,  but  to  make  the  State  religious.  The 
privilege  and  the  wealth  that  come  to  the  sect  are  not  the 
object,  but  the  accident,  of  the  endowment.  The  object  of 
endowment  is  that,  inasmuch  as  the  State  has  an  army  to 
contend  against  its  enemies  without,  so  it  has  an  army  to 
contend  against  the  enemies  within  of  sin,  ignorance,  and 
crime  ;  and  when  the  State  selects  any  one  sect  in  preference 
to  another,  the  simple  question  is  whether  the  sect  is  better 
qualified  than  other  sects  to  do  the  work  which  the  State 
wants  to  have  done.  If  that  be  so,  it  seems  to  me  that  there 
is  no  more  injustice  in  the  State  contracting,  if  I  may  use  the 
expression,  with  an  ecclesiastical  firm  to  do  its  duty  of  religious 
teaching  than  there  is  in  the  State  contracting  with  a  secular 
firm  to  do  any  secular  work  which  it  may  require.  In  both 
cases  there  is  inequality  consequent  upon  the  act,  but  in  neither 
is  there  injustice — because  it  appears  to  me  that  to  treat 
equally  things  that  are  unequal,  is  not  justice,  but  the  very 
greatest  injustice.  The  question,  therefore,  whether  injustice 
is  done  to  one  sect  by  the  establishment  of  another  resolves 
itself  into  this  further  question — Is  the  sect  selected  better 
fitted  to  do  the  work  of  the  country  than  the  other  ?  Or,  in 
other  words,  in  order  to  have  religious  equality  you  must  have 
equality  of  religions.     What  I  would  ask  in  the  next  place  is 


MAGEE  139 

— Are  there  two  rival  sects  in  Ireland  equally  fitted  for  the 
work  the  State  has  to  do  ?  Your  Lordships  need  not  fear  that 
I  shall  enter  upon  a  theological  discussion.  I  am  quite  aware 
that  the  modern  theory  of  the  State  is  that  it  should  have  no 
religion — a  theory  to  which  I  am  almost  a  convert  after  perusing 
some  of  the  details  of  this  Bill,  because  it  goes  very  near  to 
assuring  me  that,  whether  a  State  may  have  a  religion  or  not, 
it  may  occasionally  forget  that  it  has  a  conscience.  The 
question  as  between  these  two  sects  is  decided  by  the  Bill 
which  I  hold,  and  beyond  the  limits  of  which  I  shall  not  travel. 
Why  is  it  that  we  are  not  discussing  this  evening  a  Bill  for 
"  levelling  up  "  instead  of  one  for  "  levelling  down  ?  "  Why 
are  we  not  discussing  that  which  I  venture  to  say  would  be 
the  most  statesmanlike  mode  of  dealing  with  the  question  ? 
We  have  heard  from  the  supporters  of  the  Bill  again  and  again 
that  the  reason  is  that  neither  the  English  nor  the  Scotch 
people  will  tolerate  the  endowment,  as  they  call  it,  of  Popery. 
What  is  that,  but  in  other  words,  to  say  that  the  English  and 
Scotch  people  are  so  deeply  convinced  of  the  inequaUty  of 
these  two  religions  that,  whilst  they  could  endure  the  endow- 
ment of  the  one,  nothing  would  induce  them  to  listen  to  the 
proposal  for  the  endowment  of  the  other  ?  Why,  the  Bill 
itself  is  founded  upon  the  principle  of  the  inequality  of  the  two 
religions  ;  and  so  far  from  it  being  true  that  it  has  been 
attempted  to  defend  the  Irish  Church  with  the  No  Popery 
cry,  my  belief  is  that  it  is  at  this  moment  about  to  be 
destroyed  in  obedience  to  that  very  cry.  I  go  further,  and 
say  that  this  Bill  enacts  the  most  flagrant  religious  inequality 
— because,  if  it  passes  and  the  Irish  Church  is  disestablished 
and  disendowed,  the  next  thing  the  Roman  Catholics  will  say 
to  you  upon  the  principle  of  religious  inequality  will  be — "  In 
England  and  in  Scotland  the  religion  of  the  majority  of  the 
people  is  established  and  endowed,  and  in  Ireland  the  religion 
of  the  majority  is  neither  established  nor  endowed  ;  how  can 
you  call  that  religious  equality  ?  "  What  would  be  the  neces- 
sary result  of  such  a  demand  as  that  ?  Would  it  not  be  that 
you  would  come  face  to  face  with  the  very  same  difficulty  in 
England,  and  to  meet  that  demand  for  religious  equality  you 
would  need  either  to  level  up  or  level  down — either  to  estab- 
lish or  endow  the  Roman  Catholics  in  Ireland,  or  disestablish 
and  disendow  the  Church  in  England  ?     I  say,  therefore,  that 


140  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

the  Bill  establishes  a  principle  of  religious  inequality  of  the 
most  glaring  kind.  Then  the  next  plea  is  this — We  are  told 
that  the  Irish  Church  is  a  great  injustice,  because  the  funds, 
which  should  be  the  property  of  the  whole  nation — a  national 
State  fund — have  been  given  to  be  the  property  of  a  minority. 
WeU,  if  that  be  so,  I  would  ask  why  not  endow  the  majority  ? 
If  the  minority  are  in  wrongful  possession  of  the  property, 
why  not  hand  it  over  to  the  majority  at  once  ?  Do  noble 
Lords  suppose  that  until  they  have  done  this  the  majority 
will  really  be  satisfied  ?  One  noble  and  learned  Lord  (Lord 
Penzance)  who  spoke  to-night  with  a  candour  which,  if  I  may 
be  allowed  to  say  so,  did  him  high  honour,  distinctly  expressed 
the  opinion — which  I  respectfully  submit  to  the  attention 
of  the  Government — that  the  majority  in  Ireland  will  not  be 
satisfied,  and  will  not  have  justice,  until  this  is  done.  But  I 
respectfully  deny  the  position  that  the  funds  of  the  majority 
of  the  nation  are  in  the  possession  of  the  minority.  I  deny 
that  the  Church  of  the  minority  possesses  funds  which  ever 
did  belong  to  the  majority.  I  do  not  beheve  that  one  shilling 
of  tithe  rent-charge,  or  that  one  acre  of  glebe  land  in  Ireland, 
ever  belonged  to  the  Church  of  the  majority.  Tithe  was  paid 
for  the  first  time  within  the  pale  after  the  Synod  of  Cashel, 
when  the  Church  of  Ireland,  though  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  was  the  Church  of  the  Anglican  minority  ;  and  the 
Ulster  glebes  were  given  to  the  Protestants  of  Ulster  surely 
at  a  time  when  it  was  distinctly  known  that  the  Protestant 
Church  was  the  Church  of  the  minority.  My  Lords,  I  contend 
that  the  Church  of  the  minority,  standing  on  the  land  of  the 
minority,  teaching  the  faith  of  the  minority,  paid  by  the 
minority,  is  not  guilty  of  that  misappropriation  of  the  funds 
of  the  majority  with  which  it  is  charged.  If  I  may  venture 
to  detain  your  Lordships  upon  a  question  closely  connected 
with  this,  I  would  ask  you  how  it  comes  to  pass  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  land  of  Ireland  is  in  possession  of  the 
minority  of  the  people  ?  Because  your  Lordships  may  depend 
upon  it  that  that  lies  at  the  root  of  everything.  How  comes 
it  to  pass,  I  ask,  that  the  great  majority  of  the  landlords  of 
Ireland  are  Protestants  ?  For  the  simple  reason,  which, 
however,  I  have  not  heard  alluded  to  in  this  debate — because 
the  majority  of  the  Irish  people — the  Celtic  population  of 
Ireland — took  the  losing  side  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 


MAGEE  141 

centuries,  in  the  great  struggle  between  Protestant  England 
and  the  Catholic  League  of  Europe.  That  was  a  Hfe  and  death 
struggle  between  the  parties,  and,  unhappily  for  themselves, 
the  Celtic  population  sided  with  the  Catholic  Sovereigns 
against  their  own.  The  battle  was  fought  out  between  Eng- 
land and  the  Catholic  League  in  the  terrible  manner  in  which 
such  battles  were  fought  in  those  days.  On  the  one  hand,  there 
were  the  Penal  Laws — those  infernal  Penal  Laws,  as  I  will 
join  in  caUing  them,  which  now  excite  our  indignation  ;  but, 
be  it  remembered,  that  it  was  by  those  detestable  Penal  Laws 
that  the  England  of  those  days  fought  the  bulls  of  Popes  that 
encouraged  the  assassination  of  princes.  The  Penal  Laws 
were  not,  as  some  noble  Lords  seem  to  suppose,  established 
for  the  defence  of  the  Church  of  Ireland.  They  were  passed 
by  English  statesmen  in  defence  of  English  rule  in  Ireland  ; 
and  they  would  have  been  passed  by  the  Parliament  of  those 
days  with  equal  harshness  and  severity,  whatever  had  been 
the  religion  of  the  Celtic  population,  if  that  population  had 
risen  against  the  English  rule.  It  was  not  in  defence  of  the 
Church,  but  in  defence  of  English  rule,  and  against  the  Celtic 
population  that  those  detestable  laws  were  passed.  Well, 
then,  how  stands  the  case  ?  At  the  time  of  the  rebeUion 
England  confiscated  large  estates  belonging  to  the  Celtic 
rebels.  On  nine-tenths  of  those  estates  England  planted 
laymen,  on  the  remaining  tenth  she  planted  Anglican  pastors. 
Now  I  ask  this  one  question — "  Was  the  confiscation  of  the 
land  of  the  rebels  in  Ireland  just  or  unjust  ?  "  If  it  was  unjust, 
then  undo  it  all.  If,  in  the  name  of  justice,  you  are  to  trace 
back  so  far  the  roots  of  things  in  Irish  history  ;  if  you  are  to 
make  your  revolutions  in  the  sacred  name  of  justice,  then,  in 
the  name  of  that  justice,  give  back  to  the  descendants  of  those 
owners  the  confiscated  estates  that  you  took  from  them.  But 
do  not  mock  them — for  it  is  mocking  them — by  telling  them 
that  Protestant  ascendency  is  an  evil  thing.  And,  then,  how 
do  you  propose  to  deal  with  it  ?  By  teUing  them  your  land  is 
divided  into  nine-tenths  and  one-tenth — the  nine-tenths  in 
the  hands  of  the  Protestant  landlords  and  the  one-tenth  in 
the  hands  of  the  Protestant  clergy — and  we  propose  to  satisfy 
their  demand  for  justice  by  ousting  from  the  land  the  one 
proprietor  who  is  the  most  popular,  most  constantly  resident, 
and  least  offensive,  while  you  retain,  in  all  the  bitter  injustice 


142  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

of  their  original  tenure,  the  proprietors  who  are  the  most 
detested,  and  whose  possessions  they  most  covet.  Do  your 
Lordships  imagine  that  the  Irish  people  will  be  satisfied  with 
that  ?  Do  you  forget  that  you  have  to  deal  with  the  most 
quick-witted  people  in  Europe — people  whose  eyes  are  intently 
fixed  on  this  question — and  do  you  think  that  they  will  feel 
other  than  the  most  bitter  disappointment  when  you  tell  them 
that  you  are  about  to  tear  down  the  hateful  flag  of  Protestant 
ascendency,  and  they  find  you  only  tear  off  a  single  corner  of 
it — or  about  the  fortieth  part  of  the  whole  ?  The  Irish 
peasant  has  already  given  his  answer  to  your  offer  of  pacifica- 
tion— your  pacification  consists  in  refusing  him  the  land, 
which  he  does  want,  and  giving  him  the  destruction  of  the 
Church  which  he  does  not — the  Irish  peasant  writes  his  answer 
— and  a  terrible  answer  it  is — an  answer  which,  I  am  sorry  to 
say,  Enghsh  statesmen  in  past  times  have  taught  the  Irish 
peasant  to  give — that  murder  and  outrage  are  a  necessary 
stimulant  to  the  consciences  of  English  statesmen.  You  tell 
him  you  are  doing  that  which  will  satisfy  him,  and  he  writes 
his  answer  in  that  dread  handwriting  which  it  needs  no 
Daniel  to  interpret,  and  which  so  often  makes  English  states- 
men tremble  ;  and  in  that  answer  he  tells  you  he  will  be  satisfied 
with  nothing  else  than  the  possession  of  the  land — which  I  do 
the  members  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  the  justice  to 
believe  they  have  no  intention  to  give.  Thus,  my  Lords,  I 
fear  I  have  very  imperfectly,  and  at  greater  length  than  I 
intended,  put  before  you  the  question  of  religious  equaUty, 
and  the  possession  of  the  land  in  Ireland  by  a  minority  and 
the  Church  of  the  minority  ;  and  I  venture  to  think  I  have 
shown  there  is  not  that  violent  injustice  either  in  the  existence 
of  the  Irish  Church  or  in  its  possession  of  property  of  which 
we  have  heard  so  much. 

Next  comes  the  great  question  of  policy.  We  are  told  that 
this  is  a  measure  of  high  State  pohcy,  and  that  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  pacification  of  Ireland.  My  Lords,  I  beHeve 
that  I  am  doing  the  Irish  Church  no  more  than  justice,  when  I 
say  that,  if  you  could  satisfy  them  of  that,  they  would  be 
wiUing — just  as  they  believe  their  claims  to  be — to  sacrifice 
them  aU  in  order  to  obtain  peace  for  that  unhappy  and  dis- 
tracted country.  But  is  this  really  a  measure  of  sound  policy  ? 
and  how  should  we  judge  the  policy  of  any  measure  affecting 


MAGEE  143 

Ireland  ?  Surely  such  a  measure  ought  to  be  just,  ought  to 
be  a  healing,  ought  to  be  a  civilising,  measure.  Let  us  try 
this  measure  by  its  effects  upon  those  three  Irelands — for  there 
are  three — with  which  you  have  to  deal.  The  noble  Earl 
who  introduced  this  question  last  evening  (Earl  Granville) 
asked  the  question,  "  Should  we  not  deal  with  Ireland  as  we 
would  be  done  by  ?  "  Had  I  the  honour  of  following  the 
noble  Earl,  I  should  have  asked,  as  I  now  ask — "  Which 
Ireland  do  you  mean  ?  "  There  is  the  Ireland  of  the  North 
and  the  Ireland  of  the  South.  These  are  two  and  very  different 
Irelands.  But,  according  to  my  reckoning,  there  are  three. 
There  is  a  Protestant  Ireland — there  are  the  Roman  Catholic 
peasantry  of  Ireland — and  there  is,  distinct  from  both,  a  nation 
within  a  nation,  owning  a  separate  allegiance — there  is  the 
Roman  Catholic  priesthood.  These  are  the  three  parties 
for  whom  you  propose  to  carry  a  measure  of  great  State  policy. 
But,  in  the  first  place,  how  will  this  measure  affect  the  Irish 
Protestants  and  Irish  Protestantism  ?  For  I  do  that  justice 
to  Her  Majesty's  Government  that  I  believe  they  do  not  desire 
anything  that  would  be  for  the  real  injury  of  Protestantism 
in  Ireland.  No  Liberal  Government,  indeed,  could  possibly 
desire  it.  A  Liberal  Government  and  Protestantism  ought 
to  be  natural  allies.  Surely  at  least  the  alliance  between 
Liberalism  and  Protestantism  is  more  natural  than  an  alliance 
between  Liberalism  and  Ultramontanism.  Now  let  us  con- 
sider the  effect  of  this  measure  of  policy  on  the  feelings  of  Irish 
Protestants.  Will  it  have  a  healing  effect  on  them  ?  My 
Lords,  the  Irish  Protestants  are  at  this  moment  giving  you 
tlieir  answer  as  the  Irish  peasants  gave  theirs — each  after  his 
own  fashion.  The  Irish  Protestants  tell  you  that  this  measure, 
done  at  the  time  it  has  been  done,  and  with  the  words  by 
which  it  was  accompanied,  has  sunk  deep  into  their  hearts 
with  a  bitter  and  exasperating  sense  of  wrong  which  centuries 
will  not  efface.  It  is  not  only  in  their  judgment  a  harsh  and 
bitter  measure,  but  it  has  been  accompanied  by  hard  and 
cruel  words.  One  member  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  has 
thought  it  decent  and  consistent  with  his  duty  to  tell  those 
Irish  Protestants  in  the  hour  of  their  dismay  and  suffering, 
when  they  are  reeling  under  a  blow  inflicted  by  the  hand  of 
England  upon  our  most  faithful  and  loyal  fellow-subjects — 
I  say,  one  member  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  has  thought 


144  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

it  decent  and  becoming  to  tell  us — "  We  have  offended  a  clique, 
but  we  have  conciliated  a  nation."  My  Lords,  these  words 
will  rankle  long  in  the  hearts  of  these  people.  They  say  that 
having  ever  been  the  faithful  and  devoted  servants  of  England, 
and  staunchly  upholding  the  authority  of  this  country  at  a 
time  when  she  sorely  needed  it,  you  are  now  about  to  cast 
them  off  without  even  a  kind  word  of  gratitude  for  old  deeds 
of  service  and  faithful  and  devoted  loyalty.  They  are  sorely 
and  naturally  irritated.  They  tell  you  you  have  effectually 
repealed  the  Union  by  this  measure.  Although  you  may  not 
have  violated  the  Union  by  it,  it  repeals  the  Union  by  turning 
every  Unionist  into  a  Repealer  without  turning  a  single 
Repealer  into  a  Unionist.  That  is  the  utterance  of  the  Pro- 
testants of  Ireland,  and,  of  course,  it  is  highly  improper.  It 
is  very  wrong  indeed  for  them  to  speak  in  this  very  unbecoming 
way.  It  is  very  unnatural  that  they  who  believe,  rightly  or 
wrongly,  that  you  are  taking  their  religious  endowments  from 
them,  should  speak  words  which  savour  somewhat  in  their 
anger  of  dissatisfaction.  At  the  same  time,  we  are  told  it 
is  the  most  natural,  proper,  and  righteous  thing  for  the  Roman 
Catholics  of  Ireland,  who  believe  you  took  the  religious  endow- 
ments from  them  300  years  ago,  to  refuse  to  be  loyal  until 
you  give  those  endowments  back.  Well,  my  Lords,  this  is 
the  effect  of  this  measure  at  this  moment  in  the  minds  of  the 
Protestants  of  Ireland.  But  we  are  told  this  is  but  a  passing 
and  momentary  irritation,  and  that  after  a  while  the  Pro- 
testants of  Ireland  will  be  filled  with  the  deepest  gratitude 
to  Her  Majesty's  Government  for  the  favour  which  has  been 
bestowed  on  them  and  their  faith.  We  are  told  in  words 
full  of  all  manner  of  glowing  metaphor,  of  the  wonderful  benefit 
this  Bill  is  to  bestow  on  Ireland.  We  are  told  that  we  are 
assisting  at  something  like  a  launch  of  the  Irish  Church,  and 
not  its  wreck  ;  and  that  a  number  of  affectionate,  faithful,  and 
earnest  volunteers  are  engaged  in  knocking  away  the  shores 
to  let  the  ship  out  upon  the  open  sea.  Foremost  amongst 
those  volunteer  shipwrights  are  some  members  of  the  English 
Church,  admirable  vicars  and  other  dignitaries,  all  full  of  a 
generous  anxiety  to  bestow  on  their  reverend  brethren  in  Ireland 
that  measure  of  apostolic  poverty  which  they  show  no  particular 
affection  for  themselves.  My  Lords,  if  these  most  reverend  and 
very  reverend  clergymen  and  gentlemen,  who  are  so  generously 


MAGEE  145 

exhorting  the  Irish  clergy  to  swallow,  even  without  a  wry  face, 
the  potion  prepared  for  them  by  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
will  have  the  kindness  to  do  what  nurses  do  to  children,  and 
just  take  the  least  sip  of  the  potion,  their  views  on  the  subject, 
I  cannot  help  thinking,  may  undergo  some  change.  But  we 
must  treat  more  seriously  this  argument  of  apostolic  poverty 
and  the  power  of  the  voluntary  principle  in  the  case  of  the 
Protestants  of  Ireland.  We  are  asked,  when  we  dread  the 
consequences  of  this  measure — Have  we  lost  our  faith  in 
Christianity  ;  and  whether  we  are  going  to  insult  the  Pro- 
testants of  Ireland  by  saying  that  their  Church  will  not  survive, 
even  when  it  is  disestablished  and  disendowed  ?  We  are 
reminded  also  of  what  is  rather  a  truism — that  an  Establish- 
ment is  not  its  endowments.  Of  course  not,  any  more  than  a 
man  is  his  purse  ;  but  to  deprive  a  man  of  his  purse  may  have 
an  uncomfortable  and  unpleasant  effect  not  only  on  his  moral 
but  on  his  spiritual  nature.  This  argument  of  apostolic 
poverty  has  this  peculiarity,  and  that  is,  that  often  as  I  have 
heard  it  used  by  laymen  of  the  clergy,  I  never  heard  a  layman 
who  remembered  that  the  flocks  of  the  apostles  were  as  poor 
as  the  apostles  themselves.  What  is  so  conducive  to  the 
spirituality  of  the  clergyman  may  be  equally  conducive  to  the 
spirituaUty  of  the  layman.  We  are  told  that  Christianity  in 
the  first  three  centuries  succeeded  admirably  without  endow- 
ments, and  we  are  asked  why  it  does  not  do  so  at  the  present 
day  ?  But  Christianity  succeeded  admirably  in  the  first 
three  centuries  without  printing  presses  and  telegraphs.  Why, 
then,  does  it  not  do  so  now  ?  Suppose  this  were  a  Bill  to 
deprive  the  Irish  clergy  for  the  future  of  the  privilege  of  printing 
or  reading  books,  and,  when  they  complained  of  the  injustice, 
were  to  be  told  that  the  apostles  conquered  the  world  without 
a  printing  press  or  a  steam  engine.  The  argument  is  as  good 
in  the  one  case  as  the  other,  and  it  proves  simply  this — that, 
Christianity  having  obtained  the  great  fruit  of  its  victories 
over  the  world,  there  is  no  wisdom  or  sense  in  asking  Chris- 
tianity to  surrender  those  fruits  and  give  up  its  conquests  in 
order  to  begin  afresh  and  fight  the  battle  over  again.  We  are 
reminded  that  Christianity  is  divine.  It  is  divine ;  and 
for  the  very  reason — that  I  believe  it  to  be  a  divine  gift,  given 
like  all  divine  gifts,  upon  its  own  conditions — for  this  very 
reason  do  I  fear  for  the  nation  that  rejects  this  divine  gift  or 

10 — (2171) 


146  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

does  it  dishonour.  If  the  Union  between  Church  and  State 
be  really  the  highest  ideal  of  the  existence  of  Christianity 
in  the  world — and  it  remains  to  be  proved  that  it  is  not — if 
this  were  part  of  the  intention  of  the  Divine  Founder,  then  the 
separation  of  the  Church  and  State  places  each  upon  a  lower 
level,  and  in  a  worse  condition  for  their  respective  works  in 
God's  world  than  each  would  occupy  if  united  together.  Then 
I  am  reminded  that  the  Protestants  of  Ireland  are  wealthy, 
and  that  it  insults  them  to  suppose  that  they  wiU  not  support 
their  Church  on  the  voluntary  system.  But  who  is  it  that  tells 
us  that  the  Protestant  landlords  are  wealthy  and  will  be  able 
to  provide  ministrations  for  their  poorer  tenantry  ?  On  the 
back  of  this  Bill  stands  the  name  of  the  distinguished  states- 
man who  tells  us  it  is  his  wish  that  we  may  remove  these 
Protestant  landlords  from  Ireland  and  replace  them  by  a 
Roman  Catholic  tenantry.  I  say  it  is  impossible  that  these 
two  things  are  compatible.  Does  that  distinguished  states- 
man imagine  we  can  beheve  that  these  two  things  are  com- 
patible ?  If  he  does,  I  can  only  say — and  I  will  quote  his  own 
words — that  then  without  the  previous  degradation  of  being 
made  a  Bishop — at  least,  such  a  Bishop  as  is  made  in  these 
degenerate  days — he  must  have  an  infinite  fund  of  faith  in 
the  creduhty  of  his  feUow-countrymen.  And  now  let  me  ask 
how  this  question  will  work  socially.  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment appear  to  have  immense  confidence  in  the  force  of  the 
voluntary  principle  in  the  minds  of  the  Protestant  landlords  ; 
and  yet  it  is  a  strange  thing  that  they  cannot  trust  the  Pro- 
testant landlords  to  provide  for  the  lunatics,  and  the  deaf, 
and  the  mutes.  We  aU  know  there  are  men  who  will  relieve 
temporal  distress  when  they  will  not  relieve  spiritual  distress  ; 
and  yet  we  are  to  believe  that  the  Protestant  landlords,  deep 
as  is  their  love  for  their  faith,  are  so  curiously  constituted  that 
they  will  be  most  willing  to  provide  for  the  spiritual  needs  of 
the  poor  labourers  on  their  estates,  and  utterly  unwilHng  to 
provide  for  their  temporal  needs.  But,  supposing  this  measure 
is  carried,  what  will  be  its  real  social  effect  ?  It  will  be  one 
of  two  things.  The  landlord  is  to  be  obliged  to  provide  for 
himself  under  this  Bill  religious  ministrations,  while  he  con- 
tinues to  pay  the  whole  rent-charge  which  he  undertook  upon 
the  faith  of  having  rehgious  ministration  provided.  Now, 
what  will  he  do  in  this  case  ?     Possibly  he  may  provide  himself 


MAGEE  147 

with  a  chaplain  ;  he  may  have  a  tame  Levite  about  his 
house.  He  may  provide  himself  in  some  such  fashion  as  that ; 
but  when  he  gets  dissatisfied  with  the  ministrations  of  that 
humble  spiritual  servant,  or  grudges  the  cost  of  his  keep,  what 
will  he  do  ?  He  will  come  to  England,  where  he  would  find 
those  ministrations  furnished  without  any  cost  whatever — so 
that  the  direct  effect  of  this  measure  would  be  to  promote 
absenteeism.  But  if  he  remain  on  his  estate  his  direct 
interest  is  to  increase  the  number  of  the  Protestant  tenantry 
on  his  estate — because  every  fresh  one  lessens  the  burden 
of  supporting  these  spiritual  ministrations ;  and  thus  if 
the  landlord  remains  it  leads  to  religious  evictions,  and  this 
by  way  of  pacifying  Ireland.  What  character  will  the  Pro- 
testantism of  Ireland  assume  under  this  measure  ?  What 
will  be  the  quality  of  the  religious  ministrations  ?  I  was 
very  much  struck  with  an  anecdote,  told  with  great  eloquence 
by  the  present  Prime  Minister  on  that  memorable  tour  of 
his  in  Lancashire — a  story  which  he  told  more  than  once, 
and  which  he  seemed  to  consider  of  great  importance.  It 
was  a  story — I  cannot  vouch  for  its  truth — I  mean  no  imputa- 
tion whatever  upon  the  veracity,  or  even  upon  the  careful 
accuracy,  of  the  Prime  Minister.  I  merely  guard  myself, 
because  I  am  aware  that  the  truth  of  the  story,  which  no  doubt 
was  supplied  to  him,  has  been  questioned.  But,  so  far  as  my 
argument  goes,  the  truth  or  error  of  the  story  is  altogether 
immaterial.  The  story  was  that  there  was  a  certain  clergyman 
in  the  North  of  Ireland  whose  parishioners  insisted  on  placing 
Orange  flags  on  his  church,  in  opposition  to  his  wishes  and 
against  his  protest.  The  Prime  Minister  said  :  "  There,  you 
see  what  the  Protestant  Establishment  of  Ireland  does."  And 
so  I  say.  The  Protestant  Establishment  produced  in  that  case 
a  clergyman  who,  because  he  was  established  and  endowed  was 
more  liberal  and  more  tolerant,  and  was  enabled  to  be  more 
liberal  and  tolerant,  than  certain  members  of  his  flock. 
But  what  is  the  effect  which  this  measure  will  have  ?  It 
rewards  this  clergyman — this  supposititious  clergyman  we  will 
say — for  his  loyalty  and  his  tolerance,  by  proceeding  to  dis- 
establish and  disendow  him,  and  then  to  make  him  entirely 
dependent  on  a  very  intolerant  flock,  who  are  represented  as 
using  his  church  as  a  place  for  religious  and  party  emblems — 
you  make  him  dependent  on  them  for  his  daily  bread.     This 


148  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

is  to  convert  the  future  clergymen  of  Ireland  into  fanatics, 
almost  in  spite  of  themselves,  and  as  the  price  of  their  daily 
food.  How  many  itinerant  lecturers  of  a  political  kind  does 
the  right  rev.  prelate  think  will  be  found  in  Ireland  five  years 
after  the  passing  of  this  measure  ?  The  absolute  necessity 
of  each  clergyman  to  gather  the  sheep  out  of  his  neighbour's 
fold — if  he  is  to  have  any  fleece  at  all — which  this  would  induce, 
would  be  likely  to  promote  anything  but  amity  and  concord. 
So  much  for  the  effect  of  the  measure  upon  Protestants.  What 
is  to  be  the  effect  of  it  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  peasant  ? 
You  impoverish  the  people  by  removing  the  Protestant  land- 
lord, you  place  upon  him  a  double  and  heavy  burden  ;  you 
throw  upon  him  the  sustenance  of  the  ministry  ;  you  take 
away  the  rent  charge,  and  remove  that  elevating  and  civilising 
influence  exercised  by  the  more  highly  educated  Protestant 
clergy — by  these  various  means  you  are  leaving  the  Roman 
Catholic  peasant  in  Ireland  to  sink  down  into  deeper  darkness. 
Then  as  regards  the  Roman  Catholic  priesthood  of  Ireland,  I 
have  not  a  word  of  disrespect  to  speak  of  them  ;  and  if  I  had 
it  is  not  in  this  place  that  I  should  speak  it,  but  in  their  pre- 
sence. I  speak,  as  far  as  possible,  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
priesthood  as  I  should  speak  of  the  priesthood  of  our  own 
Church.  Destroy  the  Irish  Church  Establishment  to  please 
the  Roman  Catholic  priest  and — human  nature  is  human 
nature  still — there  may  be  a  feeling  of  gratified  rivalry  in  his 
mind.  But  the  Roman  Catholic  priest  firmly  believes  that  the 
property  you  are  taking  from  the  Established  Church,  but 
which  you  refuse  to  give  him,  is  his.  He  believes  the  rights  of 
his  Church  to  be  indefeasible.  Nullum  tempus  occunit 
Ecclesice.  In  the  name  of  religious  equality — the  very  name  of 
which  he  utterly  abhors,  and  which  is  utterly  unknown  to  the 
genius  and  history  of  his  Church — you  take  property  which  he 
believes  to  belong  to  his  Church,  and  divert  it  to  other  pur- 
poses, and  then  you  profess  to  expect  that  he  will  be  satisfied. 
Then  as  to  the  land  and  education  questions  which  now  dis- 
turb Ireland.  You  must  necessarily  have  the  Roman  Catholic 
priest  against  you.  The  Roman  Catholic  priest  is  a  peasant 
by  birth  and,  to  his  honour  be  it  said,  remains  a  peasant 
in  his  sympathies,  which  are  with  the  peasantry  in  this  matter 
of  land  ;  and  bribe  him  as  you  may — and  it  seems  to  me  a 
very  coarse  bribe — bribe  him  with  the  destruction  of  the  Church, 


MAGEE  149 

I  believe  that  you  will  find  him  true  to  the  last  on  this  question 
of  land,  and  that  you  will  not  secure  him  as  an  ally  in  deahng 
with  this  question.  Then  as  to  the  question  of  education.  An 
alliance  between  the  Ultramontanists  and  a  Liberal  Govern- 
ment on  this  question  is  quite  impossible.  You  will  have 
increased  the  fanaticism  of  all  these  religious  sects  ;  you  will 
have  set  them  still  more  strongly  against  each  other  ;  you 
will  find  that  you  have  not  produced  paradisaical  amity  by 
compelling  a  resort  to  paradisaical  scantiness  of  dress  ;  and 
you  will  find  that  these  various  bodies  will  not  strike  up  eternal 
friendship  when  they  find  that  you  have  despoiled  each  of  them 
in  turn.  It  is  a  sad  thing  to  see  that  the  minds  of  English 
statesmen  seem  still  to  move  in  the  same  unhappy  groove 
in  matters  that  relate  to  Ireland  ;  their  principle  seems  to 
consist  only  in  successive  confiscations.  England  confiscated 
the  property  of  Ireland  at  the  bidding  of  a  Pope  at  a  time  when 
the  inhabitants  of  that  country  were  designated  by  the  King 
as  the  "  beastly  Irish."  The  policy  of  confiscation  was  again 
carried  out  during  the  reign  of  the  Stuarts  and  of  Cromwell ; 
and  now,  in  the  reign  of  Victoria,  the  last  device  for  regulating 
Irish  affairs  to  be  found  in  the  repertory  of  English  statesmen, 
is  another  confiscation,  but,  my  Lords,  with  this  difference — 
that,  whereas,  in  those  days  England  confiscated  the  property 
of  the  disloyal  and  rewarded  the  loyal,  in  these  days  she 
proceeds  to  mend  matters  by  confiscating  the  property  of  the 
loyal  to  reward  the  disloyal. 

If  I  may  still  venture  for  a  short  time  to  trespass  on  your 
Lordships'  attention,  I  would  ask  one  question  more.  I 
would  ask  whether  this  measure — unjust  and  impoHtic  as  I 
believe  it  to  be — does  really  satisfy  the  verdict  of  the  nation. 
We  are  told  that  this  measure  is  imperatively  demanded  by 
the  verdict  of  the  nation.  I  think  I  may  take  some  exception 
to  this  phrase  "  verdict  of  the  nation  "  as  applied  to  the 
decision  at  the  hustings.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  duty  of  the 
voters  at  the  hustings  is  not  to  pass  laws  but  to  choose  legis- 
lators. It  is,  in  my  opinion,  rather  tending  in  a  revolutionary 
direction  to  talk  of  the  hasty  and  impassioned  verdict  at  the 
hustings  as  the  deliberate  verdict  of  the  nation.  I  should 
rather  call  it  the  empanelling  the  jury  which  is  to  give  the 
verdict.  I  thank  the  noble  Lords  on  those  benches  for 
reminding  me  by  their  cheers.    I  should  have  thought  that  that 


150  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

jury  consists  not  only  of  those  empanelled  at  the  hustings, 
but  also  those  who  have  an  hereditary  right  to  sit  in  this  place, 
and  that  the  verdict  of  the  nation  is  really  the  verdict  of  the 
Three  Estates  of  the  Realm.  Then,  my  Lords,  I  might  take 
further  objection  to  this  verdict  on  the  ground  of  the  arts  by 
which  it  has  been  obtained.  Speaking  of  matters  which  are 
within  my  own  knowledge,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  in 
the  whole  history  of  fiction  there  has  been  nothing  to  equal 
the  persistent,  I  might  say  the  mahgnant,  exaggerations  that 
have  been  circulated  through  England  for  years  past  with 
respect  to  the  Irish  Church.  I  believe  the  minds  of  people 
have  been  poisoned  and  influenced  by  these  representations, 
and  exception  may  fairly  be  taken  to  a  verdict  obtained  by 
such  means  as  these.  But  I  am  willing,  for  one,  to  accept  the 
verdict  of  the  nation,  when  that  verdict  has  been  completely 
and  distinctly  ascertained.  Nay,  more,  I  should  be  one  of 
the  first  to  implore  your  Lordships  to  carry  that  verdict  out 
in  this  Bill.  Now,  my  Lords,  the  verdict  of  the  nation  was 
given  on  four  issues — on  disestablishment — on  partial  dis- 
endowment — on  absolute  impartiality  as  regards  all  religions 
— and  on  large  generosity  and  kindness  in  dealing  with  the 
Irish  Church.  As  regards  disestablishment,  I  distinctly  recog- 
nise the  fact  that  the  nation  has  pronounced — and,  I  believe, 
irrevocably  pronounced — for  the  disestablishment  of  the  Irish 
Church  ;  much  as  I  grieve  and  lament  the  fact,  I  have  no  wish 
to  affect  ignorance  of  it ;  but  if  I  were  an  Irish  clergyman,  in 
the  present  state  of  relations  between  the  Government  and  the 
Irish  Church,  the  circumstance  would  not  greatly  distress  me, 
because  it  seems  to  me  that  the  Irish  Church  has  reached  that 
point  when  the  State  has  become  irreconcilably  hostile  to  the 
Church,  and  it  is  for  her  profit  and  credit  that  she  should  be 
relieved  from  that  which,  once  a  source  of  strength  and  honour 
to  both,  is  hereinafter  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  cause  of  weakness 
and  distress.  I  cannot  say  that,  as  an  Irish  Churchman,  I 
should  feel  sorry  for  such  a  result.  I  should  not  hke  to  see  the 
freedom,  or  rather  the  want  of  freedom,  of  the  Irish  Church  left 
in  the  hands  of  a  Government  consisting  of  men,  who,  however 
honourable,  and  personally,  however  pious  and  rehgious, 
had  yet  declared  themselves  implacably  hostile  to  that  Estab- 
lishment. But  what  was  the  verdict  of  the  nation  that  was 
taken  on  the  question  of  disendowment  ?     I  will  venture  to 


MAGEE  151 

make  use  of  one  quotation,  and  but  one.  It  is  from  the  speech 
of  the  noble  Duke,  who,  I  beheve,  is  the  very  last  man  to 
shrink  from  the  force  of  any  words  which  he  may  have  used 
(the  Duke  of  Argyll).  Speaking  on  the  29th  of  June  last  year, 
the  noble  Duke  said — 

There  is  a  great  distinction  between  disendowment  and  disestab- 
lishment, and  it  was  not  without  a  set  purpose  and  dehberate  and  careful 
intention  that  the  word  "  disendowment  "  was  avoided  and  "  disestab- 
lishment "  was  inserted  in  the  Resolution.  That  course  was  adopted 
for  the  very  good  reason  that,  as  far  as  I  know,  no  human  being  proposes 

to   disendow  the   Established   Church  altogether Nobody 

has  ever  proposed  to  deprive  the  Church  of  endowments  derived  from 
private  benefactions.  But  more  than  this.  Under  the  scheme  sketched 
by  Mr.  Gladstone,  the  Church  is  to  be  left  in  the  possession  of  the 
Churches  and  parsonages  and  of  some  land  adjacent,  so  that  it  could  not, 
in  perfect  strictness,  be  said  that  the  Church  under  that  scheme  is  to  be 
wholly  deprived  of  its  endowments.  Besides,  it  is  at  the  option  and  dis- 
cretion of  ParUament  to  what  extent  disendowment  shall  go 

Therefore,  those  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  who  voted  for  that 
Resolution  are  perfectly  free  to  vote  for  any  sort  of  compromise  in 
respect  to  the  endowment  of  the  Church. 

From  this  language  it  is  clear  that  members  of  the  House 
of  Commons  were  perfectly  free  to  vote  for  any  sort  of  com- 
promise in  respect  of  the  endowments  of  the  Church.  I  hope 
your  Lordships  will  bear  in  mind  the  effect  of  these  words — 
especially  so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  question  of  disendowment. 
On  this  issue,  the  verdict  of  the  nation  was  taken  ;  and  when 
persons  read  declarations  like  this,  and  others  conceived  in 
the  same  spirit,  they  beheved  that  what  was  intended  was  not 
disendowment  but  only  partial  disendowment.  I  must  reject 
a  compromise  carried  out  in  a  manner  so  different  from  that 
which  such  promises  led  us  to  expect.  How  was  this  question 
dealt  with  in  the  other  House  of  Parliament  ?  Every  attempt 
to  obtain  the  slightest  benefit  for  the  Church — every  attempt 
to  get  anything  beyond  vested  interests,  which  are  no  endow- 
ment at  all — was  met  with  the  expression  of  a  kindly  disposition, 
ending  in  a  positive  refusal.  The  answer  was  :  "  We  should 
be  very  glad  to  do  this  if  we  could  do  it ;  but  it  would  be 
against  the  principle  of  the  Bill,  which  goes  to  total  disendow- 
ment." Again,  my  Lords,  when  a  small  recognition  was  asked 
for  servants  whom  this  Bill  dismisses  at  a  moment's  notice 
— when  requests  of  this  kind  were  made,  even  by  members 
who  were  supporting  the  Bill,  there  was  the  same  reply — "  We 
should  be  glad  to  do  it  but  the  principle  of  the  Bill  is  against 


152  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

it."  I  confess,  my  Lords,  that  when  I  remember  these  things, 
I  feel  some  doubt  in  respect  of  the  admirable  advice  given  last 
night  by  the  most  Rev.  Primate.  I  have  not  the  least  doubt 
as  to  the  wisdom  of  his  Grace  in  suggesting  the  amendments 
to  which  he  referred  ;  but  I  have  considerable  doubt  as  to 
whether  there  is  any  chance  of  our  inducing  the  Government 
to  accede  to  those  Amendments,  when  I  find  that,  in  direct 
contradiction  to  the  verdict  of  the  nation,  Amendments  moved 
in  the  other  House  were  rejected,  not  on  the  ground  of  any 
unkindly  feelings,  but  on  the  ground  that  they  were  against 
the  principle  of  the  Bill. 

My  Lords,  there  was  another  point  on  which  the  verdict  was 
taken.  When  this  question  was  before  the  country  the  country 
was  told  that  the  Irish  Church  should  receive  "  gracious  and 
generous  "  treatment — that  was,  that  the  treatment  should 
be  equitable  and  indulgent.  But,  my  Lords,  the  measure 
which  on  the  hustings  was  described  as  "  gracious  and 
generous  "  has  since  been  described  in  another  place  by  a 
member  of  the  Government  as  "  harsh,  sweeping,  and  severe." 
Again  and  again,  I  believe,  the  nation  was  told  that  the  measure 
was  to  be  "  gracious  and  generous  "  ;  but  that  description  of  it 
has  been  repudiated  by  a  member  of  the  Cabinet,  who  has  said, 
"  Government  does  not  affect  to  be  generous  ;  it  could  not  be 
generous  with  other  men's  money."  On  the  hustings  the 
Government  said  :  "  We  mean  to  be  generous — we  intend  to 
be  kind."  In  the  other  House  they  have  said  :  "  We  do  not 
affect  to  be  generous ;  we  do  not  intend  to  be  indulgent." 
I  ask  whether  it  would  be  possible  to  put  in  words  a  more 
distinct  and  emphatic  contradiction  of  the  verdict  of  the 
country.  Time  does  not  admit  of  my  going  through  all  the 
harsh  and  cruel — I  believe,  unintentionally  harsh  and  cruel — 
details  of  the  Bill.  There  is  the  way  in  which  the  clergy  are 
treated  in  respect  of  the  glebe  houses  and  lands.  It  is  alleged 
that  the  money  which  they  spent  on  these  glebe  houses  they 
were  compelled  to  spend  by  a  law  of  the  Church.  That  is  an 
error.  They  were  not  compelled  to  spend  that  money  by  a 
law  of  the  Church,  nor  could  the  laity  compel  them  to  spend 
it.  The  matter  was  one  between  the  Bishops  and  the  clergy. 
Again,  under  this  Bill,  the  Church  Commissioners  will  obtain 
money  for  the  repair  of  glebe  houses  which  they  cannot  apply 
to  that  purpose.     Then  there  is  a  deduction  for  a  tax  which 


MAGEE  153 

the  clergy  paid  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners  ;  but  that 
tax  went  towards  small  benefices  and  the  repair  ol  churches. 
There  is  generosity  !  But  I  shall  not  weary  your  Lordships 
by  going  through  details  which,  should  the  Bill  ever  go  into 
Committee,  I  shall  have  occasion  to  bring  before  your  Lord- 
ships in  regular  order.  I  may,  however,  observe  that  the  Bill 
is  harsh  and  cruel  in  those  provisions  by  which  rectors,  curates, 
and  the  Church  Commissioners  will  be  brought  into  tiiangular 
entanglement.  It  deals  harshly  with  the  curates  in  respect 
of  their  prospects  of  preferment.  It  deals  harshly  with 
vergers  and  other  persons  now  employed  in  the  churches, 
who  may  be  turned  out  without  a  moment's  notice.  It 
pinches  something  here  and  extracts  something  there  in  a 
shabby  and  niggardly  way.  In  the  magnificent  peroration 
to  the  speech  by  which  this  Bill  was  introduced  in  the  other 
House — a  peroration  which  must  still  ring  in  the  ears  of  those 
who  heard  it — its  distinguished  author  spoke  of  the  spectacle 
which  England  would  present  to  the  civilised  world  when  she 
came  to  perform  this  magnanimous  act  of  justice  and  penitence. 
What  a  magnanimous  sight  !  The  first  thing  that  this  mag- 
nanimous British  nation  does  in  the  performance  of  this  act 
of  justice  and  penitence  is  to  put  into  her  pocket  the  annual 
sum  she  has  been  in  the  habit  of  paying  to  Maynooth  and  to 
compensate  Maynooth  out  of  the  funds  of  the  Irish  Church. 
The  Presbyterian  Members  for  Scotland,  while  joining  in  this 
exercise  of  magnanimity,  forget  that  horror  of  Popery  which 
was  so  largely  relied  on  and  so  loudly  expressed  at  the  last 
elections  in  Scotland.  They  have  changed  their  minds,  on  the 
theory  that  a  bribe  to  Popery  is  nothing  if  preceded  by  plunder 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopacy.  Putting  two  sins  together, 
they  make  one  good  action.  Throughout  its  provisions  this 
Bill  is  characterised  by  a  hard  and  niggardly  spirit.  I  am 
surprised  by  the  injustice  and  impolicy  of  the  measure,  but  I 
am  still  more  astonished  at  its  intense  shabbiness.  It  is  a 
small  and  pitiful  Bill.  It  is  not  worthy  of  a  great  nation. 
This  great  nation  in  its  act  of  magnanimity  and  penitence  has 
done  the  talking,  but  has  put  the  sackcloth  and  ashes  on  the 
Irish  Church,  and  made  the  fasting  be  performed  by  the  poor 
vergers  and  organists.  I  object  to  this  change  altogether; 
but  if  it  was  to  be  made,  there  could  have  been  a  more 
statesmanlike  and  generous  mode  of  making  it. 


154  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

My  Lords,  there  is  one  other  point  on  which  the  verdict 
of  the  nation  was  distinctly  taken.  It  was  stated  to  the 
country  that,  in  deahng  with  this  subject,  there  should  be 
perfect  impartiality.  It  was  written,  as  it  were,  in  letters  of 
iron,  that  the  principle  of  rehgious  equality  would  be  perfectly 
carried  out.  I  ask  your  Lordships  to  consider  whether,  in 
dealing  with  Ma3mooth  and  in  dealing  with  the  Irish  Church, 
there  has  been  real  impartiality.  I  believe  there  has  not  been  ; 
I  believe  that  the  mode  in  which  they  have  been  dealt  with 
is  far  from  being  impartial.  There  is  another  matter  of  great 
importance.  It  was  promised  that  with  the  funds  of  the  Irish 
Church  there  should  be  no  endowments,  no  payments  to  the 
ministers  of  another  religion,  no  provision  for  the  religious 
teaching  of  persons  of  another  faith.  It  appears  to  me  that 
the  Bill  is  in  direct  contradiction  of  that  pledge,  because  it 
proceeds  to  give  the  surplus  to  lunatics,  deaf  mutes,  and  other 
fit  recipients  of  a  nation's  charity.  The  Prime  Minister  said 
in  another  place  that  the  deaf  mutes  would  get  "  training 
and  instruction."  I  now  ask  whether  this  "  training  and 
instruction  "  for  deaf  mutes,  which,  of  course,  they  are  to  receive 
in  educational  establishments,  is  to  be  religious  training  and 
instruction  ;  because  if  it  is  to  be  irreligious,  I  venture  to  say 
there  will  be  no  desire  for  it.  The  Irish  people,  being  only 
imperfectly  civilised,  and  having  some  barbarous  prejudices  in 
favour  of  religion,  are  not  anxious  for  that  boon  of  purely 
atheistical  education  which  some  persons  are  desirous  of 
having  generally  adopted  in  this  more  civilised  and  less  bar- 
barously prejudiced  country,  England.  If  the  training  and 
instruction  of  those  deaf  mutes  is  to  be  religious,  it  will  be  given 
by  the  priests.  If  the  training  and  instruction  is  not  to  be 
religious,  the  ministers  of  religion  will  protest  against  it, 
and  they  will  be  right  in  so  doing.  Then,  my  Lords,  I  want  to 
know  how  you  are  to  deal  with  these  institutions — where  there 
is  religious  instruction  there  must  be  chapels  and  ministers 
for  giving  that  religious  instruction — I  want  to  know  how  these 
chapels  and  ministers  are  to  be  maintained  without  a  money 
payment,  that  is  to  say,  without  applying  the  surplus  funds  of 
the  Irish  Church  towards  the  payment  of  ministers  and  for 
the  teaching  of  religion.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  this 
Bill,  by  proposing  to  appropriate  these  funds  to  religious 
teaching,  violates  the  verdict  of  the  nation  ;   and  that  having 


MAGEE  155 

in  its  Preamble  declared  that  nothing  shall  be  given  to  religious 
instruction,  it  does  proceed  to  apply  the  surplus  funds  of  the 
Irish  Church  to  the  purposes  of  religious  instruction. 

And  now,  my  Lords,  I  have  to  conclude  an  address  which 
I  am  certain  has  extended  to  an  exceedingly  wearisome  length, 
and  I  cannot  sufficiently  thank  your  Lordships  for  the  very 
generous  kindness  and  patience  with  which  you  have  listened 
to  me.  I  am  afraid  that  what  I  had  to  say  was  unacceptable 
to  many  of  your  Lordships,  and  to  these  noble  Lords  I  must 
especially  tender  my  thanks  for  the  courtesy  they  have  extended 
to  me. 

My  Lords,  I  have  but  one  or  two  more  words  to  say.  I  will 
say  but  a  few  words,  my  Lords,  about  the  menaces  and  the 
warnings — the  mixed  menaces  and  warnings — which  have 
been  addressed  to  your  Lordships'  House  by  many  without 
and  so  far,  at  least,  as  warning  is  concerned,  by  some  within. 
My  Lords,  I  myself  have  been  told  that  I  should  be  very  heedful 
of  the  way  in  which  I  may  vote  on  this  question,  because  none 
may  say  what  will  be  the  consequences  to  your  Lordships' 
House — to  the  fate  of  your  Lordships'  Order,  and  to  the  great 
interests  of  the  country — of  the  vote  you  are  about  to  give. 
My  Lords,  as  far  as  menaces  go,  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  neces- 
sary that  I  should  say  one  word  by  way  of  inducing  your 
Lordships,  even  if  I  could  hope  to  induce  you  to  do  anything 
by  words  of  mine,  to  resist  those  menaces.  I  believe  that  not 
merely  the  spirit  of  your  Lordships,  but  your  Lordships'  high 
sense  of  the  duty  you  owe  to  the  country,  would  lead  you  to 
resist  any  such  intolerant  and  overbearing  menaces  as  those 
which  have  been  uttered  towards  you.  I  believe  that  if  any 
one  of  your  Lordships  were  capable  of  yielding  to  those  menaces 
you  would  be  possessed  of  sufficient  intelligence  to  know  how 
utterly  useless  any  such  humiliation  would  be  in  the  way  of 
prolonging  your  Lordships'  existence  as  an  institution — 
because  it  would  be  exactly  the  case  of  those  who,  for  the 
sake  of  preserving  life,  lose  all  that  makes  life  worth  living 
— it  would  be  an  abnegation  of  all  your  Lordships'  duties  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  those  powers  which  a  few  years 
hence  would  be  taken  from  you.  Your  Lordships  would  then 
be  standing  in  this  position  in  the  face  of  the  roused  and  angry 
democracy  of  the  country,  with  which  you  have  been  so  loudly 
menaced  out-of-doors,   and  so  gently  and  tenderly  warned 


156  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

within.  You  would  then  be  standing  in  the  face  of  that 
fierce  and  angry  democracy  with  these  words  on  your  lips  : 
"  Spare  us,  we  entreat  and  beseech  you  !  Spare  us  to  live  a 
little  longer  as  an  Order  is  all  that  we  ask,  so  that  we  may  play 
at  being  statesmen,  that  we  may  sit  upon  red  benches  in  a 
gilded  house,  and  affect  and  pretend  to  guide  the  destinies 
of  the  nation  and  play  at  legislation.  Spare  us,  for  this  reason 
— that  we  are  utterly  contemptible,  and  that  we  are  entirely 
contented  with  our  ignoble  position  !  Spare  us,  for  this  reason 
— that  we  have  never  failed  in  any  case  of  danger  to  spare 
ourselves  !  Spare  us,  because  we  have  lost  the  power  to  hurt 
anyone  !  Spare  us,  because  we  have  now  become  the  mere 
subservient  tools  in  the  hands  of  the  Minister  of  the  day,  the 
mere  armorial  bearings  on  the  seal  that  he  may  take  in  his 
hands  to  stamp  any  deed,  however  foolish  and  however  mis- 
chievous !  And  this  is  all  we  have  to  say  by  way  of  plea  for 
the  continuance  of  our  Order."  My  Lords,  I  do  not  beheve 
there  is  a  Peer  in  your  Lordships'  House,  or  anyone  who  is 
worthy  of  finding  a  place  in  it,  who  could  use  such  language 
or  think  such  thoughts  ;  and,  therefore,  I  will  put  aside  all  the 
menaces  to  which  I  have  referred.  For  myself,  and  as  regards 
my  own  vote,  if  I  were  to  allow  myself  to  give  a  thought  to 
consequences,  much  might  be  said  as  to  the  consequences  of 
your  Lordships'  vote  to  your  Lordships'  House,  and  to  the 
Church  which  I  so  dearly  love  ;  and  I,  a  young  member  of 
your  Lordships'  House,  fully  understand  the  gravity  of  the 
course  I  am  about  to  adopt,  and  the  serious  consequences  that 
may  attach  to  that  vote  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  I  feel  that  I 
have  no  choice  in  the  matter — that  I  dare  not  allow  myself 
a  choice  as  to  the  vote  that  I  must  give  upon  this  measure. 
My  Lords,  I  hear  a  great  deal  about  the  verdict  of  the  nation 
on  this  question  ;  but,  without  presuming  to  judge  the  con- 
science or  the  wisdom  of  others,  and  speaking  wholly  and 
entirely  for  myself,  I  desire  to  remember — and  I  cannot  help 
remembering — this,  that  there  are  other  and  more  distant 
verdicts  than  the  verdict  even  of  this  nation,  and  of  this  moment, 
which  everyone  of  us  must  face  at  one  time  or  another,  and 
which  I  myself  am  thinking  of  while  I  am  speaking  and  in 
determining  upon  the  vote  I  am  about  to  give.  There  is  the 
verdict  of  the  English  nation  in  its  calmer  hours — when  it  may 
have  recovered  from  its  fear  and  its  panic,  and  when  it  may  be 


MAGEE  157 

disposed  to  judge  those  who  too  hastily  yielded  to  its  passions  ; 
there  is  the  verdict  of  after  history,  which  we  are  making  even 
as  we  speak  and  act  in  this  place,  and  which  is  hereafter  to 
judge  us  for  our  speeches  and  for  our  deeds  ;  and,  my  Lords, 
there  is  the  other  more  solemn  and  more  awful  verdict  which 
we  shall  have  to  face ;  and  I  feel  that  I  shall  be  then  judged  not 
for  the  consequences  of  my  having  made  a  mistake,  but  for 
the  spirit  in  which  I  have  acted,  and  for  the  purposes  with 
which  I  have  acted.  And,  my  Lords,  as  I  think  of  the  hour 
in  which  I  must  face  that  verdict,  I  dare  not — I  cannot— -I 
must  not — and  I  will  not — vote  for  this  most  unhappy,  this 
most  ill-tried,  this  most  ill-omened  measure  that  now  lies  on 
the  table  of  your  Lordships'  House. 


CHARLES   STEWART   PARNELL 

Parnell  was  a  striking  example  of  a  man  who  succeeded  in 
the  conflict  of  public  life  without  any  natural  gift  of  eloquence, 
or  even  of  fluency.  When  he  first  came  as  a  young  man  into 
the  House  of  Commons,  he  was  a  hesitating,  indeed  a  bungling, 
speaker.  But  he  gradually  overcame  his  deficiencies,  and  was 
recognised  as  a  master  of  precise  statement,  always  saying 
what  he  meant  to  say,  neither  more  nor  less.  He  is  a  rare, 
perhaps  a  solitary,  instance  of  successful  endeavour  to  acquire 
the  art  of  speech  by  sheer  energy  and  determination.  To 
select  from  his  speeches  is  difficult,  because  they  all  belong 
entirely  to  the  circumstances  of  the  day.  But  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  he  made  at  any  time  or  in  any  place  a  more 
thoroughly  characteristic  effort  than  his  speech  on  the  second 
reading  of  the  Home  Rule  Bill  in  1886.  He  understood  Irish 
politics  so  well  that  he  could  treat  them  from  above,  taking 
a  comprehensive  view,  and  at  the  same  time  neglect  nothing 
which  was  required  to  give  a  consistent  estimate  of  the  whole. 
The  secret  of  his  power  was  that  he  knew  exactly  what  he 
wanted,  and  could  always  accommodate  means  to  ends  by  com- 
bining persuasive  argument  with  lucid  exposition.  But  this 
was  not  the  result  of  any  original  or  innate  facility.  Parnell 
worked  hard  at  the  drudgery  of  fitting  words  with  facts. 
He  left  nothing  to  chance.  He  never  trusted  to  extempora- 
neous inspiration.  Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  was  he  a  coiner 
of  happy  phrases.  What  he  could  do  was  to  express  neatly, 
clearly,  and  tersely,  the  exact  meaning  he  wished  to  convey. 
Pamell's  power  of  controlling  both  himself  and  others  was 
innate  and  remarkable.  In  that  sense,  and  to  that  extent, 
his  speeches  were  acts.  His  range  indeed  was  limited.  He 
was  not  a  spectator  nor  an  idealist,  and  he  had  no  skill  in  com- 
parative politics.     But  his  intelligence  was  both   wide    and 

158 


PARNELL  159 

clear.  He  knew  the  object  at  which  he  aimed,  and  understood 
the  means  by  which  he  sought  to  attain  it.  He  discovered  how 
to  use  the  House  of  Commons  for  the  purposes  of  his  own 
policy,  and  how  to  impress  his  audience  with  a  lucid  idea 
of  the  scheme  he  was  endeavouring  to  set  up.  He  never  spoke 
as  if  he  were  appeaUng  to  passion  or  prejudice.  Cold,  dry 
reason  always  seemed  to  be  the  foundation  upon  which  he 
relied.  The  "  blind  hysterics  of  the  Celt  "  were  as  remote 
from  his  methods  and  temperament  as  anything  that  could 
well  be  conceived.  He  could  be  persuasive,  or  he  could  be 
defiant.  He  was  never  impulsive,  or  erratic.  He  was  essen- 
tially a  leader,  and  he  spoke  with  the  authority  which  springs 
from  the  assured  consciousness  of  strength. 

The  First  Home  Rule  Bill 
June  1th,  1886 

If,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  intervene  in  the  contest  of  giants  which 
has  been  proceeding  for  so  many  days  in  this  House  in  refer- 
ence to  this  great  question,  it  is  not  because  I  suppose  that  that 
intervention  is  specially  suitable  to  the  moment ;  and  I  cer- 
tainly should  not,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  have  felt 
any  self-confidence  whatever  in  following  so  able  and  eloquent 
a  member  of  this  House  as  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the 
member  for  the  Eastern  Division  of  Edinburgh  (Mr.  Goschen). 
But  "  Thrice  is  he  armed  who  hath  his  quarrel  just  "  ;  and  even 
a  man  so  inferior  from  every  point  of  view  to  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman  as  I  am  may  hope  upon  this  occasion  not  to  be  so 
much  behind  him  as  usual.  Sir,  without  intending  to  offer 
any  disrespect  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  I  must  say 
that  I  could  not  help  thinking,  when  listening  to  his  speech, 
that  in  all  the  lost  causes  which  I  have  seen  him  attempting 
to  defend  during  many  years  past  he  was  never  so  little  effec- 
tive as  when  contending  against  the  Bill  which  we  hope  to  see 
read  a  second  time  to-night.  The  right  honourable  gentleman 
has  sought — I  think  very  unfairly — to  cast  a  lurid  light  upon 
the  situation  by  an  allusion  to  those  unhappy  outrages  which 
have  occurred  in  Kerry.     I  join  the  right  honourable  gentleman 


leO  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

in  expressing  my  contempt  for  these  cowardly  and  disgraceful 
practices.  I  join  him  in  that  respect  to  the  fullest  extent. 
Neither  do  I  say  that  because  for  months  past  evictions  have 
been  more  numerous  in  Kerry  than  in  all  the  rest  of  Munster 
taken  together — neither  do  I  say  that  that  constitutes  any 
excuse  for  these  outrages,  although  it  may  supply  us  with  a 
reason  for  them  ;  but  when  I  denounce  outrages  I  denounce 
them  in  all  parts  of  Ireland,  whether  they  occur  in  Ulster  or 
in  Kerry.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  himself  is  cer- 
tainly free  from  reproach  in  this  matter.  He  has  not  joined 
the  noble  Lord  the  member  for  South  Paddington  (Lord 
Randolph  Churchill)  and  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the 
member  for  West  Birmingham  (Mr.  Chamberlain)  in  the  use 
of  reckless  language  with  reference  to  the  affairs  of  a  country 
which  is  not  their  country,  for  the  use  of  which  language  they 
had  not  even  the  paltry  excuse  that  the  subject  was  any 
business  of  theirs,  or  that  they  really  felt  any  interest  in  it. 
My  colleagues  have  been  reproached,  some  of  them,  in  times 
past,  because  they  have  not  been  very  careful  to  look  into  wh^.t 
might  be  the  effect  of  their  language,  and  the  doctrine  of 
indirect  responsibihty  has  been  employed  against  many  of 
them  to  the  length  of  imprisonment.  But  if  the  doctrine  of 
indirect  responsibility  had  been  employed  against  the  noble 
Lord  and  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  member  for 
West  Birmingham,  the  former  of  them  might,  perhaps,  have 
pleaded  as  an  excuse  that  as  he  believes  in  nothing 
and  in  nobody  except  himself,  so  he  could  not  expect  any 
great  importance  to  be  attached  to  his  declarations  ;  while 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  member  for  West  Birm- 
ingham might  have  said,  and  very  truly,  that  he  was  abso- 
lutely ignorant  of  all  the  circumstances  of  Ireland,  his  celebrated 
projected  visit  to  that  country  last  autumn  not  having  come 
off,  and  that  consequently  he  really  did  not  know  what  would 
be  the  probable  result  of  his  language.  However,  Sir,  we  have 
the  result  now  in  one  murder  which  has  already  been  com- 
mitted in  Belfast.  I  trust  that  in  future  right  honourable 
gentlemen  will  remember  that  the  importance  and  gravity 
of  the  occurrences  which  may  follow  in  Ulster — and  these 
occurrences  cannot  well  go  further  than  outrage  and  assassina- 
tion— will  depend  very  much  upon  what  they  say  and  upon  the 
meaning  which  their  words  may  convey  to  the  minds  of  Ulster 


PARNELL  161 

men.  But  certainly  I  do  condemn  these  outrages  in  Kerry  ; 
and  the  right  honourable  gentleman  says  very  rightly  that  they 
must  be  put  a  stop  to.  Well,  so  say  we  all ;  but  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  would  try  to  put  a  stop  to  them  by 
resorting  to  the  old  bad  method  of  coercion,  which  he  and  his 
friends  have  been  using  for  the  last  eighty-six  years,  while  we 
say  with  the  Prime  Minister — "  Try  the  effect  of  self-govern- 
ment "  ;  and  if  Kerry  men  then  resort  to  outrages  they  will 
very  soon  find  that  the  rest  of  Ireland  will  put  a  stop  to  them. 
With  reference  to  the  terrible  occurrence  in  Belfast,  I  wish 
to  give  an  explanation,  because,  as  usual,  the  English  news- 
papers have  perverted  for  their  own  purposes  what  actually 
took  place.  I  was  very  much  pained  at  reading  that  it  was 
alleged  that  the  disturbance  arose  out  of  an  expression  addressed 
by  a  Catholic  workman  to  a  Protestant  fellow-workman,  to 
the  effect  that  in  a  short  time  none  of  his  religious  persuasion 
would  be  allowed  to  earn  a  crust  of  bread  in  Ireland.  Now, 
that  does  not  represent  the  circumstances  of  the  occurrence 
as  they  are  reported  in  the  local  newspapers.  What  really 
took  place  was  this.  The  Catholic  overseer  of  the  works 
found  fault  with  the  way  in  which  an  Orangeman — I  think 
he  was  an  Orange  workman  ;  at  all  events,  he  was  a  Protestant 
workman — was  executing  the  digging  out  of  a  drain.  The 
overseer  said  to  the  workman — "  That  is  a  nice  way  to  dig  this 
drain,"  and  the  Orangeman  replied — the  overseer  happened 
to  be  a  Catholic — "  What  does  a  Papist  know  about  digging 
drains  ?  "  The  overseer,  being  irritated — I  will  not  say  justly 
irritated,  because  it  was  absurd  of  him  to  be  irritated  by  such 
a  remark — said,  in  reply,  "  You  will  never  earn  a  crust  in  these 
works  again,"  meaning  that  the  workman  would  be  dismissed. 
"  That  is  all  right ;  that  is  all  I  want,"  said  the  Orangeman, 
and  he  took  up  his  shovel  and  left  the  works,  and  I  believe 
that  while  leaving  he  was  assaulted  by  one  or  more  of  the 
Catholic  workmen.  It  is  necessary  to  point  out — so  difficult 
is  it  to  know  here  what  is  true  with  regard  to  any  Irish  matter — 
it  is  very  important  that  the  House  should  understand  that 
the  overseer's  remark  had  not  a  general,  but  an  individual, 
application.  At  the  same  time,  I  am  not  to  be  taken  as  justi- 
fying, in  the  slightest  degree,  the  conduct  of  Cathohcs 
employed  in  the  yard.  Now,  Sir,  the  right  honourable  member 
for  East  Edinburgh  (Mr.  Goschen)  spoke  about  the  sovereignty 
II — (2171) 


162  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  Parliament.  I  entirely  agree  upon  this  point.  I  entirely 
accept  the  definitions  given  by  the  Under  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs  (Mr.  Bryce)  the  other  day.  We  have 
always  known  since  the  introduction  of  this  Bill  the  difference 
between  a  co-ordinate  and  a  sub-ordinate  Parliament,  and  we 
have  recognised  that  the  Legislature  which  the  Prime  Minister 
proposes  to  constitute  is  a  subordinate  Parliament — that  it 
is  not  the  same  as  Grattan's  Parliament,  which  was  co-equal 
with  the  Imperial  Parliament,  arising  out  of  the  same  constitu- 
tion given  to  the  Irish  people  by  the  Crown,  just  in  the  same 
way,  though  not  by  the  same  means,  as  Parliamentary  Institu- 
tions were  given  to  Great  Britain  by  the  Sovereign.  We 
understand  this  perfectly  well.  Undoubtedly,  I  should  have 
preferred — as  I  stated  in  speeches  which  have  been  quoted 
against  me  as  showing  that  I  could  not  accept  this  proposed 
settlement  as  final — I  should  have  preferred  the  restitution 
of  Grattan's  Parliament ;  it  would  have  been  more  in  accord- 
ance with  the  sentiments  of  the  Irish  people,  whose  sentiments 
in  such  matters  it  is  most  important  to  regard.  But  with 
reference  to  the  argument  that  has  been  used  against  us,  that 
I  am  precluded  from  accepting  this  solution  as  a  final  solution 
because  I  have  claimed  the  restitution  of  Grattan's  Parliament, 
I  would  beg  to  say  that  I  consider  there  are  practical  advantages 
connected  with  the  proposed  statutory  body,  limited  and 
subordinate  to  this  Imperial  Parliament  as  it  undoubtedly  wiU 
be,  which  will  render  it  much  more  useful  and  advantageous 
to  the  Irish  people  than  was  Grattan's  Parliament,  and  that 
the  statutory  body,  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
proposes  to  constitute,  is  much  more  likely  to  be  a  final  settle- 
ment than  Grattan's  Parliament.  That  Parliament  had 
many  disadvantages.  In  the  first  place  it  had  a  House  of 
Lords.  Well,  we  get  rid  of  the  House  of  Lords  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  right  honourable  gentleman.  It  is  true  that 
in  its  place  is  put  the  First  Order  ;  a  very  salutary  provision, 
although  I  do  not  agree  entirely  as  to  the  extent  of  time  for 
which  the  First  Order  is  allowed  to  hang  up  a  Bill,  or  as  to 
some  of  the  qualifications  for  it.  But  these  are  subordinate 
matters.  I  say,  then,  that  the  First  Order  is  a  very  salutary 
provision,  one  that  will  tend  to  prevent  rash  legislation  and 
intemperate  action  ;  and  as  to  the  power  of  the  First  Order 
to  hang  up  a  Bill,  I  would  rather  see  a  measure  hung  up  for 


PARNELL  163 

ten  years  by  such  a  body,  than  hung  up  for  only  twenty-four 
hours  by  this  Imperial  Parliament.  I  venture  to  express  that 
opinion,  having  regard  to  the  irritation  which  such  constant 
action  by  the  Imperial  Parliament,  such  constant  meddling 
and  overthrowing  on  the  part  of  this  Imperial  Parliament, 
as  is  suggested  by  the  right  honourable  member  for  West 
Birmingham,  would  have  on  the  minds  of  the  people  of  Ireland. 
That  would  be  most  mischievous  and  dangerous,  and  sure  to 
prevent  the  settlement  being  regarded  as  final.  But  when  we 
are  aU  assembled  together  in  one  chamber,  different  sections 
of  Irishmen  threshing  out  different  subjects,  those  causes 
and  effects  which  have  always  come  into  operation  in  similar 
circumstances  wiU  be  reproduced  in  Ireland  also,  and  dis- 
cussion will  be  relied  upon  for  bringing  about  a  settlement  of 
disputed  questions,  which  we,  of  course,  have,  like  other  people, 
and  the  result  of  these  two  Orders  working  together  will  be 
that  those  questions  will  be  decided  on  a  basis  of  compromise 
more  or  less  satisfactory  to  both  parties.  We  feel,  therefore, 
that  under  this  Bill  this  Imperial  Parliament  will  have  the 
ultimate  supremacy  and  the  ultimate  sovereignty.  I  have 
already  said  that  under  this  Bill  the  House  of  Lords  of  Grattan's 
Parliament  will  not  be  revived  ;  but  there  is  another  great 
difference  between  Grattan's  Parliament  and  the  Legislature 
to  be  established  by  this  Bill — namely,  that  in  Grattan's 
Parliament  the  executive  was  divorced  from  the  Legislative 
body,  whereas  the  two  bodies  will  be  united  under  this  Bill. 
I  think  it  was  Fox  who  said  that  there  could  be  no  perfect 
system  of  government  in  which  the  executive  and  the  legisla- 
tive bodies  were  not  joined  together.  In  that  observation  I 
quite  agree,  and  I  think  that  the  most  useful  part  of  the  Bill 
is  that  in  which  the  Prime  Minister  throws  the  responsibility 
upon  the  new  Legislature  of  maintaining  that  order  in  Ireland 
without  which  no  state  and  no  society  can  exist.  I  under- 
stand the  supremacy  of  the  Imperial  Parliament  to  be  this — 
that  they  can  interfere  in  the  event  of  the  powers  which  are 
conferred  by  this  Bill  being  abused  under  certain  circumstances. 
But  the  Nationalists,  in  accepting  this  BiU,  go,  as  I  think, 
imder  an  honourable  undertaking  not  to  abuse  those  powers  ; 
and  we  pledge  ourselves  in  that  respect  for  the  Irish  people, 
as  far  as  we  can  pledge  ourselves,  not  to  abuse  those  powers, 
and  to  devote  our  energies  and  any  influence  which  we  may  have 


164  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

with  the  Irish  people  to  prevent  those  powers  from  being 
abused.  But,  if  those  powers  should  be  abused,  the  Imperial 
Parliament  will  have  at  its  command  the  force  which  it  reserves 
to  itself,  and  it  will  be  ready  to  intervene,  but  only  in  the  case 
of  grave  necessity  arising.  I  believe  that  this  is  by  far  the  best 
mode  in  which  we  can  hope  to  settle  this  question.  You  will 
have  the  real  power  of  force  in  your  hands,  and  you  ought 
to  have  it,  and  if  abuses  be  committed  and  injustices  be  per- 
petrated, you  will  always  be  able  to  use  that  force  to  put  a 
stop  to  them.  You  will  have  the  power  and  the  supremacy 
of  Parliament  untouched  and  unimpaired,  just  as  though  this 
Bill  had  never  been  brought  forward.  We  fully  recognise 
this  to  be  the  effect  of  the  Bill.  I  now  repeat  what  I  have 
already  said  on  the  first  reading  of  the  measure,  immediately 
after  I  heard  the  statement  of  the  Prime  Minister,  that  we  look 
upon  the  provisions  of  the  Bill  as  a  final  settlement  of  this 
question,  and  that  I  believe  that  the  Irish  people  have  accepted 
it  as  such  a  settlement.  Of  course  you  may  not  believe  me, 
but  I  can  say  no  more.  I  think  my  words  upon  that  occasion 
have  been  singularly  justified  by  the  result.  We  have  had 
this  measure  accepted  in  the  sense  I  have  indicated  by  all  the 
leaders  of  every  section  of  national  opinion  both  in  Ireland 
and  outside  Ireland.  It  has  been  so  accepted  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  by  the  Irish  population  in  that  country 
with  whose  vengeance  some  honourable  members  are  so  fond 
of  threatening  us.  Not  a  single  dissentient  voice  has  been 
raised  against  this  Bill  by  any  Irishman — not  by  any  Irishman 
holding  national  opinions — and  I  need  scarcely  remind  the 
House  that  there  are  sections  among  Irish  Nationalists  just 
as  much  as  there  are  even  among  the  great  Conservative  party. 
I  say  that  as  far  as  it  is  possible  for  a  nation  to  accept  a  measure 
cheerfully,  freely,  gladly,  and  without  reservation  as  a  final 
settlement,  I  say  that  the  Irish  people  have  shown  that  they 
have  accepted  this  measure  in  that  sense.  Even  the  terrible 
Irish  World,  which  has  not  been  upon  my  side  for  the  last  five 
or  six  years,  says — 

The   Irish   race  at  home  and  abroad  have  signified  a  wiUingness  to 
accept  the  terms  of  peace  offered  by  Mr.  Gladstone. 

And  it  goes  on  to  say  that — 

If    a  Coercion   Bill   were  now   passed   by   Parliament,  it   would  be 
equivalent  to  a  declaration  of  war  on  the  part  of  England. 


PARNELL  165 

I  need  scarcely  say  that  we  have  not  agreed  with  Mr.  Patrick 
Ford  during  the  last  five  or  six  years.  We  strongly  condemn 
his  proposals,  and  he  returns  the  comphment  by  not  agreeing 
with  us,  so  that  the  honours  are  pretty  easy  ;  but  I  take  his 
testimony  upon  this  point — that  as  far  as  the  Irish  people 
at  home  and  in  America  can  accept  this  Bill,  they  have  done 
so  without  any  reservation  whatever  in  a  final  sense.  I  will 
now  leave  this  question  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Imperial 
Parhament,  and  I  will  turn  to  one  that  was  strongly  dwelt 
upon  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  member  for  East 
Edinburgh — I  mean  the  influence  which  he  fears  the  Irish 
priesthood  will  seek  to  exercise  upon  the  future  education  of 
the  Irish  people.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  certainly 
has  not  followed  the  example  of  other  illustrious  persons  by 
indulging  in  extravagant  language  on  the  Protestant  and 
Cathohc  question,  and  I  may  say  at  once  that  I  am  quite  sure 
that  the  right  honourable  gentleman's  apprehensions  upon  this 
subject  are  genuine,  so  far  as  they  go,  and  that  at  the  same  time 
he  has  no  desire  to  fan  the  flame  of  religious  discord.  On  the 
whole,  I  think  that  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  spoken 
very  fairly  in  reference  to  this  part  of  the  question  :  and  I  will 
not  say  that,  perhaps  as  a  Protestant,  had  I  not  had,  as  I  have 
had,  abundant  experience  of  Ireland,  I  might  not  have  been 
inclined  to  share  his  fears  myself.  Certainly,  I  have  no  such 
fears  ;  but  it  is  rather  remarkable  that  this  question  of  educa- 
tion is  the  only  matter  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  any 
fears  about  in  dealing  with  the  question  of  Protestant  and 
Cathohc  in  Ireland.  There  is,  however,  a  further  remarkable 
fact  that  in  reference  to  this  branch  of  the  question  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  the  member  for  West  Birmingham  has 
actually  proposed  to  give  the  entire  control  of  Irish  education 
to  a  central  council  sitting  in  Dubhn,  without  any  reservation 
whatever  as  regards  Ulster  or  the  Irish  Protestant  population. 
I  beheve  in  that  scheme,  also,  that  there  was  to  be 
a  First  and  Second  Order.  Sir,  it  is  very  hard  to 
please  everybody,  and  while  we  please  the  right  honour- 
able member  for  West  Birmingham  by  agreeing  to  give  the 
control  of  Irish  education  to  a  legislative  body  which  will 
include  the  representatives  of  the  Protestants  of  Ulster,  we 
find  that  we  are  unfortunately  running  foul  of  the  right  honour- 
able member  for  East  Edinburgh.     I  can,  however,  assure  the 


166  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

latter  right  honourable  gentleman  that  we  Irishmen  shall  be 
able  to  settle  this  question  of  Irish  education  very  well  among 
ourselves.  There  are  many  Liberal  Nationalists  in  Ireland — 
I  call  them  Liberal  Nationalists  because  I  take  the  phrase  in 
reference  to  this  question  of  education — there  are  many  Liberal 
Nationahsts  who  do  not  altogether  share  the  views  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  upon  the  subject  of  education,  and 
they  are  anxious  that  Ulster  should  remain  an  integral  part  of 
Ireland  in  order  that  they  may  share  the  responsibiUty  of 
government  and  may  influence  that  government  by  the  feelings 
which  they  have  with  regard  to  this  question  of  education. 
You  may  depend  upon  it  that  in  an  Irish  Legislature  Ulster, 
with  such  representatives  as  she  now  has  in  the  Imperial 
Parliament,  would  be  able  successfully  to  resist  the  realisation 
of  any  idea  which  the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  might  enter- 
tain with  regard  to  obtaining  an  undue  control  of  Irish  educa- 
tion. But  I  repeat  that  we  shall  be  able  to  settle  this  question 
and  others  very  satisfactorily  to  all  the  parties  concerned  among 
ourselves.  I  may,  however,  remind  the  House  that  things 
are  going  on  in  this  House  with  reference  to  denominational 
education  which  would  undoubtedly  result  in  denominational 
education  being  conceded  to  Ireland  within  a  very  few  years 
without  any  effective  control  over  it  being  given  to  the  Ulster 
Protestants.  Mention  has  been  made  by  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  the  member  for  East  Edinburgh  (Mr.  Goschen)  of 
the  linen  trade  of  Ireland,  and  some  correspondence  on  the 
subject  has  been  read.  I  think,  however,  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  was  rather  unfair  to  my  honourable  friend  the 
member  for  Dublin  (Mr.  Gray).  I  have  not  had  the  advantage 
of  reading  the  correspondence  ;  but  the  part  of  it  which  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  quoted  to  prove  that  the  linen 
trade  was  the  curse  of  Ulster  was  one  passage  out  of  many 
letters  intended  to  prove  that  the  linen  trade  of  Ireland  had 
been  a  curse  to  Ulster,  as  it  had  been  the  means,  not  perhaps 
directly,  but  indirectly,  of  enabling  the  peasantry  to  pay  the 
rack  rents  of  the  landlords,  who  otherwise  could  not  have 
obtained  them.  I  do  not  think  that  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  was  fair  in  seeking  to  carry  the  matter  further  than 
that  ;  indeed,  there  did  not  appear  to  be  an  inclination  on  the 
part  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  to  carry  it  very  far. 
I  observe  that  there  has  been  a  similar  reticence  exercised  with 


PARNELL  167 

regard  to  the  financial  question,  of  wliich  such  a  point  was 
made  upon  the  first  reading  of  the  Bill.  The  speech  of  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  upon  the  first  reading  of  the  Bill 
undoubtedly  produced  a  great  sensation  in  the  House 
and  in  this  country.  The  right  honourable  gentleman,  as 
I  and  others,  and  as  I  believe,  the  country,  under- 
stood him,  argued  on  that  occasion  that  Ulster  was 
wealthier  than  either  of  the  three  other  provinces, 
and  that,  consequently,  the  burden  of  taxation  would 
chiefly  fall  upon  her,  and  that  without  Ulster,  therefore,  it 
would  be  impossible  to  carry  on  the  Government  of  Ireland. 
The  right  honourable  gentleman  did  not  press  the  financial 
question  very  far  to-day  ;  but  it  would  not  be  improper, 
perhaps,  if  we  were  to  direct  a  little  more  of  our  attention  to 
it.  For  instance,  the  great  wealth  of  Ulster  has  been  taken 
up  as  the  war  cry  of  the  Loyal  and  Patriotic  Union.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman  was  not  very  fair  in  choosing  the 
Income  Tax,  Schedule  D,  referring  to  trade  and  professions, 
as  his  standard  and  measure  of  the  relative  wealth  of  the  four 
provinces.  The  fair  measure  of  their  relative  wealth  is  their 
assessment  to  the  Income  Tax  under  all  the  different  schedules, 
and  also  the  value  of  the  rateable  property  in  Ireland  ;  and 
these  tests  show  conclusively  that,  so  far  from  Ulster  being 
the  wealthiest  of  the  four  provinces — and  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  does  not  deny  it  now — Ulster  comes  third  in  point 
of  relative  wealth  per  head  of  the  population.  She  comes 
after  Leinster  and  Munster,  and  she  is  only  superior  to  im- 
poverished Connaught.  The  Income  Tax  for  Leinster  shows 
^10  6s,  9d.  per  head  ;  Munster,  £Q  Os.  7d.  per  head  ;  Ulster, 
£5  14s.  9d.  per  head  ;  and  Connaught,  ^^3  13s.  7d.  per  head. 
These  figures  will  give  the  relative  wealth  of  the  four  provinces 
as  ascertained  by  these,  the  only  fair  tests,  as  9*92  for  Leinster, 
5*78  for  Munster,  5*49  for  Ulster — or  a  little  more  than  half 
the  relative  wealth  of  Leinster — and  3.52  for  Connaught. 
And  if  you  take  any  other  fair  test,  the  same  results  will  be 
arrived  at,  and  you  will  find  that  Ulster,  instead  of  being  first 
on  the  list  as  regards  wealth  per  head,  comes  a  long  way  third. 
But  the  right  honourable  gentleman  also  argued  that  there 
was  a  great  disparity  between  the  north-eastern  or  Protestant 
counties  of  Ulster  and  the  Catholic  coimties  in  point  of 
relative  wealth.     He  chose  not  the  fairest  test,  but  the  test 


168  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

that  showed  the  best  results  for  his  argument,  and  he  repre- 
sented the  disparity  as  a  great  deal  larger  than  that  which 
actually  exists.  But,  undoubtedly,  to  a  considerable  extent, 
there  is  this  disproportion  between  the  relative  wealth  of  the 
north-eastern  counties  of  Ulster  and  the  other  counties  of  the 
province.  But  that  same  disproportion  exists  all  through 
Ireland.  The  eastern  counties  are  universally  the  richer 
counties  all  over  Ireland.  If  you  draw  a  meridian  line  down 
through  the  centre  of  the  country  you  will  find  to  the  east  of 
that  line  comparative  prosperity,  and  to  the  west  of  it  com- 
parative poverty.  The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  In  the  first 
place  the  country  becomes  rocky  and  barren  as  you  go  west ; 
and,  in  the  second  place,  its  chief  trade  is  with  England  ;  and 
consequently  the  great  distributing  centres,  the  shipping  ports, 
and  other  places  where  men  of  business  and  wealth  congregate 
and  find  their  living,  exist  on  the  eastern  sea-board.  And  it 
is  only  natural,  not  only  as  regards  Ulster,  but  Munster  and 
Leinster,  that  the  eastern  portions  of  the  province  are  richer 
than  the  rest.  I  next  come  to  the  question  of  the  protection 
of  the  minority.  I  have  incidentally  dwelt  on  this  point  in 
respect  to  the  matter  of  education  ;  but  I  should  like,  with 
the  permission  of  the  House,  to  say  a  few  words  more  about  it, 
because  it  is  one  on  which  great  attention  has  been  bestowed. 
One  would  think  that  from  what  we  hear  the  Protestants  of 
Ireland  were  going  to  be  handed  over  to  the  tender  mercies 
of  a  set  of  Thugs  and  bandits.  (Hear,  hear.)  The  honour- 
able and  gallant  member  for  North  Armagh  (Major  Saunderson) 
cheers  that.  I  only  wish  that  I  was  as  safe  in  the  North  of 
Ireland  when  I  go  there  as  the  honourable  and  gallant  member 
would  be  in  the  South.  What  do  honourable  gentlemen  mean 
by  the  protection  of  the  loyal  minority  ?  In  the  first  place, 
I  ask  them  what  they  mean  by  the  loyal  minority.  The  right 
honourable  member  for  East  Edinburgh  (Mr.  Goschen)  does 
not  seem  to  have  made  up  his  mind,  even  at  this  late  stage 
of  the  discussion,  as  to  what  loyal  Ulster  he  means.  When 
asked  the  question,  he  said  he  meant  the  same  loyal  Ulster 
as  was  referred  to  by  the  Prime  Minister  in  his  speech  ;  but 
he  would  not  commit  himself  by  telling  us  what  signification 
he  attributed  to  the  Prime  Minister's  expression.  Well,  I 
have  examined  the  Prime  Minister's  reference  since  then,  and 
and  I  find  that  he  referred  to  the  whole  province  of  Ulster. 


PARNELL  169 

He  did  not  select  a  little  bit  of  the  province,  because  the  Opposi- 
tion had  not  discovered  this  point  at  that  time  ;  and  conse- 
quently I  suppose  I  may  assume  that  the  right  honourable 
member  for  East  Edinburgh  also  referred  to  the  whole  province 
of  Ulster  when  he  asked  for  special  protection  for  it.  He  has 
not,  however,  told  us  how  he  would  specially  protect  it.  But 
we  may  go  to  other  sources  to  supply  the  deficiency.  It  is  one 
of  the  features  of  this  debate  that  in  order  to  make  up  the 
patchwork  of  a  plan  you  have  to  go  round  to  the  Opposition 
speakers  and  select  a  bit  from  one  and  a  bit  from  another 
and  a  bit  from  a  third  to  frame  something  like  a  programme  in 
opposition  to  the  proposal  of  the  Prime  Minister,  and  even  then 
the  results  are  very  imsatisfactory.  But  the  right  honourable 
member  for  West  Birmingham  (Mr.  Chamberlain)  has  claimed 
— and  I  suppose  that  the  right  honourable  member  for  East 
Edinburgh,  when  the  proper  time  comes,  will  support 
him  in  that  claim — a  separate  legislature  for  the  province  of 
Ulster.  Well,  Sir,  you  would  not  protect  the  loyal  minority 
of  Ireland  even  supposing  that  you  got  a  separate  legislature 
for  the  province  of  Ulster,  because  there  are  outside  the  province 
of  Ulster  over  400,000  Protestants  who  would  still  be  without 
any  protection  so  far  as  you  propose  to  give  them  protection. 
You  would  make  the  position  of  these  400,000  Protestants,  by 
taking  away  Ulster  from  them,  infinitely  less  secure.  But  you 
would  not  even  protect  the  Protestants  in  Ulster,  because  the 
Protestants,  according  to  the  last  census,  were  in  the  pro- 
portion of  fifty-two  to  forty-eight  Cathohcs  ;  and  we  have 
every  reason  to  believe  that  now  the  Protestants  and  Catholics 
in  Ulster  are  about  equal  in  number.  At  all  events,  however 
that  may  be,  the  Nationalists  have  succeeded  in  returning  the 
majority  of  the  Ulster  members,  and  consequently  we  have  the 
Nationalists  in  a  majority  in  Ulster.  The  main  reason  of  the 
balance  of  forces  I  believe  to  be  that  a  large  proportion  of 
the  Protestant  Nationalists  voted  in  the  closely  divided  con- 
stituencies of  Ulster  in  favour  of  my  honourable  colleagues. 
So  that  you  would  have  the  Nationalist  will  to  deal  with  in 
Ulster,  even  if  Ulster  had  a  separate  legislature  ;  and  the  very 
first  thing  that  the  Ulster  legislature  would  do  would  be  to  unite 
itself  with  the  Dublin  Parliament.  WeU,  being  driven  away 
from  the  fiction  of  Protestant  Ulster,  and  the  great  majority 
of  Protestants  which  until  recently  was  alleged  to  exist  in 


170  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Ulster,  the  opponents  of  this  Bill  have  been  compelled  to  seek 
refuge  in  the  north-east  corner  of  Ulster,  consisting  of  three 
counties.  Here,  again,  comes  in  the  difficulty  that  instead  of 
protecting  the  majority  of  the  Protestants  of  Ireland  by  con- 
stituting a  legislature  for  the  north-east  corner  of  Ulster,  you 
would  abandon  the  majority  of  the  Protestants  of  Ireland  to 
their  fate  under  a  Dublin  Parliament.  Seven-twelfths  of  the 
Protestants  of  Ireland  live  outside  these  three  counties  in  the 
north-east  corner  of  Ulster,  and  the  other  five-twelfths  of  the 
Protestants  of  Ireland  live  inside  those  counties.  So  that, 
whichever  way  you  put  it,  you  must  give  up  the  idea  of  pro- 
tecting the  Protestants,  either  as  a  body  or  as  a  majority,  by 
the  establishment  of  a  separate  legislature,  either  in  Ulster 
or  in  any  portion  of  Ulster.  No,  Sir,  we  cannot  give  up  a 
single  Irishman.  We  want  the  energy,  the  patriotism,  the 
talents,  and  the  work  of  every  Irishman  to  insure  that  this 
great  experiment  shaU  be  a  successful  one.  The  best  system 
of  government  for  a  country  I  believe  to  be  one  which  requires 
that  that  government  should  be  the  resultant  of  aU  the  forces 
within  that  country.  We  cannot  give  away  to  a  second  legis- 
lature the  talents  and  influence  of  any  portion  or  section  of  the 
Irish  people.  The  class  of  Protestants  will  form  a  most 
valuable  element  in  the  Irish  legislature  of  the  future,  consti- 
tuting as  they  wiU  a  strong  minority,  and  exercising  through 
the  First  Order  a  moderating  influence  in  making  the  laws. 
We  have  heard  of  the  danger  that  will  result  from  an  untried 
and  unpractised  legislature  being  estabhshed  in  Ireland.  Now 
I  regard  variety  as  vitally  necessary  for  the  success  of  this 
trial.  We  want,  Sir,  all  creeds  and  all  classes  in  Ireland.  We 
cannot  consent  to  look  upon  a  single  Irishman  as  not  belonging 
to  us.  And  however  much  we  recognise  the  great  abilities  and 
the  industry  of  the  Irish  Protestants — and  we  recognise  them 
freely  and  fully — we  cannot  admit  that  there  is  a  single  one 
of  them  too  good  to  take  part  in  the  Dubhn  Parhament.  We 
do  not  blame  the  small  proportion  of  the  Protestants  of  Ireland 
who  feel  any  real  fear.  I  admit,  Sir,  that  there  is  a  small 
proportion  of  them  who  do  feel  this  fear.  We  do  not  blame 
them  ;  we  have  been  doing  our  best  to  allay  that  fear,  and  we 
shall  continue  to  do  so.  And,  finally,  when  this  Bill  becomes 
an  Act,  we  shall  not  cease  from  the  work  of  conciliating  the 
fears  of  this  small  section  of  Irishmen.      No,    Sir,    theirs   is 


PARNELL  171 

not  the  shame  and  disgrace  of  this  fear.  That  shame  and 
disgrace  belong  to  right  honourable  gentlemen  and  noble 
Lords  of  Enghsh  political  parties,  who,  for  selfish  interests, 
have  sought  to  rekindle  the  embers — the  almost  expiring 
embers — of  religious  bigotry.  Ireland  has  never  injured  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  the  member  for  West  Birmingham. 
I  do  not  know  why  he  should  have  added  the  strength  of  his 
powerful  arm — why  he  should,  like  another  Brennus — ^let  us 
hope  not  with  the  same  result — why  he  should  have  thrown  his 
sword  into  the  scale  against  Ireland.  I  am  not  aware  that 
we  have  either  personally  or  politically  attempted  to  injure 
the  right  honourable  gentleman,  yet  he  and  his  kind  seek  to 
dash  this  cup  from  the  lips  of  the  Irish  people — the  first  cup 
of  cold  water  that  has  been  offered  to  our  nation  since  the 
recall  of  Lord  Fitzwilliam.  This  settlement,  Sir,  I  beheve  will 
be  a  final  settlement.  I  have  been  reproached — and  it  has 
been  made  an  argument  against  the  honesty  of  my  declaration 
as  to  the  final  character  of  the  settlement — that  in  a  speech  at 
Wicklow  I  claimed  the  right  of  protecting  the  Irish  manu- 
facturer, and  it  is  said  that  this  Bill  gives  no  such  right. 
Well,  undoubtedly,  I  claimed  that  right.  But  it  was  not  when 
a  Liberal  Government  was  in  power.  That  speech  about 
Protection  at  Wicklow  was  made  at  a  time  when  we  had  every 
reason  to  know  that  the  Conservative  party,  if  they  had  been 
successful  at  the  polls,  would  have  offered  Ireland  a  statutory 
Legislature  with  a  right  to  protect  her  own  industries,  and  that 
this  would  have  been  coupled  with  the  settlement  of  the  Irish 
Land  Question  on  the  basis  of  purchase  on  a  larger  scale  than 
that  now  proposed  by  the  Prime  Minister.  I  never  should 
have  thought,  I  never  did  think,  and  I  do  not  think  now 
of  claiming  Protection  from  the  Liberal  party — I  never 
expected  it,  and,  therefore,  I  recognise  the  settlement  as  final 
without  Protection.  There  is  another  and  stronger  argument 
as  well.  In  introducing  this  Bill,  the  Prime  Minister  showed 
that  unless  we  have  fiscal  unity  there  will  be  a  loss  of  ;^  1,400,000. 
I  think,  therefore,  that,  as  a  consequence  of  fiscal  unity, 
£1,400,000  is  a  good  quid  pro  quo  for  the  loss  of  Protection. 
The  question  of  the  retention  of  the  Irish  members  I  shall 
only  touch  upon  very  slightly.  I  have  always  desired  to  keep 
my  mind  thoroughly  open  upon  it,  and  not  to  make  it  a  vital 
question.     There  are  difficulties  ;    but  they  are  rather  more 


172  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

from  the  English  than  the  Irish  point  of  view,  and  I  think  that 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  question  in  committee  that 
feehng  will  be  a  growing  one  on  the  part  of  Liberal  members. 
I  admit  the  existence  of  a  strong  sentiment  in  favour  of  our 
retention — I  will  not  say  it  is  a  reasonable  sentiment,  when  I 
consider  how  many  times  my  colleagues  and  I  have  been 
forcibly  ejected  from  this  House,  how  often  the  necessity  of 
suspending,  if  not  entirely  abrogating,  representation  on  the 
part  of  Ireland  has  been  eagerly  canvassed  by  the  London 
Press — perhaps  I  may  not,  under  these  circumstances, 
consider  the  desire  on  the  part  of  Liberal  members  as 
a  very  reasonable  one.  I  admit  that  it  is  an  honest 
one.  All  I  can  say  is  that  when  the  Prime  Minister 
has  produced  his  plan — and  I  admit  that  it  is  a  difficult  ques- 
tion, and  will  require  some  little  time  for  consideration — when 
the  Prime  Minister  has  produced  his  plan,  without  binding 
myself  beforehand,  I  shall  candidly  examine  it,  with  a  desire 
not  to  see  in  it  an  element  that  will  injure  the  permanency  of 
the  settlement,  I  shall  chiefly  deal  with  it  with  a  view  of  seeing 
whether  it  will  diminish  the  permanency  of  the  settlement  to 
the  success  of  which  my  colleagues  and  I  have  pledged  our 
political  future.  But  I  confess,  Sir,  that  if  I  had  regard  to 
the  spirit  with  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the 
member  for  West  Birmingham  has  dealt  with  this  question, 
I  should  have  been  hopelessly  alienated  from  the  plan  of 
retaining  the  Irish  members.  He  has  dealt  with  it  in  a  way 
to  attach  an  apparent  stigma  of  inferiority  to  us,  and  in  order 
that  he  may  have  the  excuse  for  constantly  meddling  in  our 
affairs,  checking  us,  thwarting  us,  and  keeping  us  under  his 
thumb.  The  Irish  people  will  never  submit  to  that.  We 
could  not  agree  to  his  plan,  for  that  would  be  fatal  to  the 
finality  and  durability  of  the  scheme.  Now,  Sir,  what  does  it 
all  come  to  ?  It  comes  to  two  alternatives  when  everything 
has  been  said  and  everything  has  been  done.  One  alternative 
is  the  coercion  which  Lord  Salisbury  put  before  the  country, 
and  the  other  is  the  alternative  offered  by  the  Prime  Minister, 
carrying  with  it  the  lasting  settlement  of  a  treaty  of  peace. 
If  you  reject  this  Bill,  Lord  Salisbury  was  quite  right  in  what 
he  said  as  to  coercion.  (No,  no.)  With  great  respect  to 
the  cries  of  "  No,"  by  honourable  members  above  the  gangway, 
I  beg  to  say  you  will  have  to  resort  to  coercion.     That  is  not 


PARNELL  173 

a  threat  on  my  part — I  would  do  much  to  prevent  the  necessity 
for  resorting  to  coercion  ;  but  I  say  it  will  be  inevitable,  and 
the  best-intentioned  Radical  who  sits  on  those  benches,  and 
who  thinks  that  he  "  never,  never  will  be  a  party  to  coercion/' 
will  be  found  very  soon  walking  into  the  Division  Lobby  in 
favour  of  the  strongest  and  most  drastic  Coercion  Bill,  or,  at 
the  very  outside,  pitifully  abstaining.  We  have  gone  through 
it  all  before.  During  the  last  five  years  I  know.  Sir,  there 
have  been  very  severe  and  drastic  Coercion  Bills  ;  but  it  will 
require  an  even  severer  and  more  drastic  measure  of  coercion 
now.  You  will  require  all  that  you  have  had  during  the  last 
five  years,  and  more  besides.  What,  Sir,  has  that  coercion 
been  ?  You  have  had.  Sir,  during  those  five  years — I  do  not 
say  this  to  inflame  passion  or  awaken  bitter  memories — you 
have  had  during  those  five  years  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas 
Corpus  Act ;  you  have  had  a  thousand  of  your  Irish  fellow- 
subjects  held  in  prison  without  specific  charge,  many  of  them 
for  long  periods  of  time,  some  of  them  for  twenty  months, 
without  trial,  and  without  any  intention  of  placing  them  on 
trial — I  think  of  all  these  thousand  persons  arrested  under 
the  Coercion  Act  of  the  late  Mr.  Forster,  scarcely  a  dozen  were 
put  on  their  trial ;  you  have  had  the  Arms  Acts  ;  you  have  had 
the  suspension  of  trial  by  jury — all  during  the  last  five  years. 
You  have  authorised  your  poHce  to  enter  the  domicile  of  a 
citizen,  of  your  fellow-subject  in  Ireland,  at  any  hour  of 
the  day  or  night,  and  to  search  every  part  of  his  domicile, 
even  the  beds  of  the  women,  without  warrant.  You  have 
fined  the  innocent  for  offences  committed  by  the  guilty  ;  you 
have  taken  power  to  expel  aliens  from  this  country  ;  you  have 
revived  the  Curfew  Law  and  the  blood  money  of  your  Norman 
conquerors  ;  you  have  gagged  the  Press  and  seized  and  sup- 
pressed newspapers  ;  you  have  manufactured  new  crimes  and 
offences,  and  applied  fresh  penalties  unknown  to  your  laws 
for  these  crimes  and  offences.  All  this  you  have  done  for  five 
years,  and  all  this,  and  much  more,  you  will  have  to  do  again. 
The  provision  in  the  Bill  for  terminating  the  representation  of 
Irish  members  has  been  very  vehemently  objected  to,  and  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  the  member  for  the  Border  Burghs 
(Mr.Trevelyan)  has  said  that  there  is  no  half-way  house  between 
separation  and  the  maintenance  of  law  and  order  in  Ireland 
by  Imperial  authority.     I  say,  with  just  as  much  sincerity 


174  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  belief,  and  just  as  much  experience  as  the  right  honourable 
gentleman,  that,  in  my  judgment,  there  is  no  half-way  house 
between  the  concession  of  legislative  autonomy  to  Ireland  and 
the  disfranchisement  of  the  country  and  her  government  as 
a  Crown  Colony.  But,  Sir,  I  refuse  to  believe  that  these  evil 
days  must  come.  I  am  convinced  that  there  are  a  sufficient 
number  of  wise  and  just  members  in  this  House  to  cause  it  to 
disregard  appeals  made  to  passion  and  to  pocket,  and  to  choose 
the  better  way  of  the  Prime  Minister — the  way  of  founding 
peace  and  goodwill  among  nations  ;  and  when  the  numbers 
in  the  Division  Lobby  come  to  be  told  it  will  also  be  told  for 
the  admiration  of  aU  future  generations,  that  England  and  her 
ParHament,  in  this  nineteenth  century,  was  wise  enough, 
brave  enough,  and  generous  enough  to  close  the  strife  of 
centuries,  and  to  give  peace,  prosperity,  and  happiness  to 
suffering  Ireland. 


MR.   GLADSTONE 

Mr.  Gladstone  took  office  in  1868  for  the  express  purpose  of 
dealing  with  the  Irish  Question  by  the  disestabUshment  and 
disendowment  of  the  Irish  Church.  The  speech  printed  in  this 
volume,  his  reply  in  the  debate  on  the  second  reading  of  the 
Irish  Church  Bill,  is  an  appropriate  example  of  his  eloquence, 
and  characteristic  of  his  powers  in  deahng  with  points  raised 
by  opponents  during  the  course  of  discussion.  No  one  in  Enghsh 
politics  was  better  able  than  Mr.  Gladstone  to  combine  a 
thorough  mastery  of  his  subject  with  an  illustration  of  general 
principles,  and  a  steadfast  adherence  to  the  main  purposes  of 
his  policy.  In  this  speech  it  wiU  be  found  that  there  is  a  stu- 
dious avoidance  of  controversial  questions  not  essential  to 
the  argument,  and  at  the  same  time  an  exhaustive  treatment 
of  aU  serious  arguments  against  the  Bill. 

Reply  on  the  Second  Reading  of  the  Irish  Church 
Bill— 1869 

Mr.  Gladstone  : — Mr.  Speaker,  I  think.  Sir,  that  both  sides  of 
the  House  must  be  agreed  at  least  in  this — that  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  who  has  just  sat  down  (Mr.  Disraeli), 
has  drawn  a  picture  of  the  state  of  Ireland  which  is  equally 
remarkable  and  deplorable.  The  right  honourable  gentleman's 
picture  consists  of  two  parts.  On  the  one  side  he  looks  at  the 
system  of  law,  government,  and  institutions  in  Ireland,  and 
there  all  is  well.  On  the  other  hand,  he  looks  at  the  people  of 
Ireland — at  the  rehgion  of  the  people,  at  the  relations  between 
the  people  of  Ireland  and  the  ministers  of  their  rehgion,  and 
there,  unfortunately,  all  is  ill.  Mr.  Burke  said,  in  one  of  his 
memorable  compositions,  that  he  did  not  know  how  to  bring  an 
indictment  against  a  nation.  For  bringing  an  indictment 
against  a  nation  commend  me  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman. 
Irish  grievances — where  are  they  ?  The  right  honourable 
gentleman  says  he  looks  in  vain  for  the  grievances  of  Ireland. 
On  the  state  of  land  tenure  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has 
nothing  to  say,  except  to  indulge  in  criticisms  on  the  language 

175 


176  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

of  my  right  honourable  friend  the  President  of  the  Board 
of  Trade  (Mr.  Bright).  With  regard  to  the  Estabhshed  Church 
of  Ireland,  though  theoretically  it  may  involve  some  departure 
from  rehgious  equality,  has  he  not  proved  to  us  that  it  is  a 
great  blessing  to  that  country  ?  Has  he  not  told  us,  grossly, 
as  I  think,  though  no  doubt  unintentionally,  misinterpreting 
the  terms  used  by  a  Judge,  that  in  Ireland  there  are  no  wrongs 
unredressed  ?  And  yet,  what  does  he  complain  of  ?  Of  the 
wholesale  sympathy  on  the  part  of  the  great  part  of  the  popu- 
lation with  Fenian  agitators  and  criminals.  Of  sympathy, 
not  only  with  political,  but  with  private,  crime  ;  and  in  the 
relations  between  the  people  and  their  clergy  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman  can  see  nothing  but  influence  misused.  This 
is  the  state  of  things  which  he  depicts  as  existing  in  Ireland  ; 
and  I  ask  him,  where  are  his  remedies  ?  The  picture  which 
he  presents  to  us  is,  so  far  as  the  Irish  people  are  concerned, 
nothing  but  a  picture  of  black  despair.  He  speaks  of  pro- 
moting the  repeal  of  the  Union,  and  because  some  clergyman 
in  Ireland,  dignified,  it  appears  by  the  title  of  Archdeacon, 
has  lately  become  a  Repealer,  the  right  honourable  gentleman, 
searching  for  the  cause  of  this  strange  opinion,  thinks  it  can 
be  found  nowhere  except  in  a  line  and  a  half  of  a  speech 
delivered  by  myself  some  thirty-three  years  ago.  There  are, 
however,  I  would  remind  him,  other  modes  of  promoting  a 
repeal  of  the  Union,  and  of  these  no  mode  is  so  cogent  in  its 
effect  in  tending  to  bring  about  what  I,  for  one,  must  regard 
as  so  deplorable  a  result,  as  that  which  is  made  use  of  by  an 
English  statesman  who  gives  us  such  highl)^  coloured  state- 
ments with  respect  to  the  condition  of  the  Irish  people,  as  to 
the  origin  of  which  he  has,  it  seems  to  me,  furnished  us  with 
a  most  inaccurate  account.  By  leaving  on  record  his  charges 
against  the  Irish  people  with  his  vindication  of  the  Government 
and  laws  of  this  country,  he  does,  I  cannot  help  feeling,  all 
that  in  him  lies  to  drive  that  people  to  despair.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman  reminds  us  that  the  Fenians  have  not 
asked  for  the  abolition  of  the  Church  in  Ireland.  No,  that  is 
very  true  ;  so  far  as  that  goes,  the  Fenians  and  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  are  exactly  in  the  same  position. 
("  Oh  !  ")  In  precisely  the  same  position,  I  was  about  to 
say,  with  respect  to  that  demand.  I  hope  I  was  not  under- 
stood as  imputing  it  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman  for  a 


GLADSTONE  177 

moment  that  he  does  not  support  the  Irish  Church  Estabhsh- 
ment  from  the  most  honourable  and  conscientious,  though  I 
think,  mistaken  motives.  The  Fenians,  differing  from  him 
entirely  in  their  views  with  respect  to  that  Church,  are  the 
very  last  persons  to  demand  its  abolition,  because  it  serves 
their  purpose  that  it  should  remain  as  it  now  stands.  What- 
ever serves  to  estrange  the  minds  of  the  Irish  population  from 
Imperial  rule,  from  British  sympathies,  and  from  their  Protest- 
ant fellow-countrymen  on  both  sides  of  the  water,  is  of  all 
things  the  most  precious  part  of  the  Fenian  stock-in-trade,  and 
it  would  ill  suit  their  purpose  indeed  to  ask  to  have  the  Church 
in  Ireland  abolished.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  at 
the  commencement  of  his  speech  vindicated,  as  I  thought, 
with  perfect  propriety,  his  right  to  overlook,  that  is,  to  go 
beyond,  the  occurrences  of  the  last  twelve  or  fifteen  months, 
to  argue  this  question  as  if  it  were  a  new  question,  as  if  there 
had  been  no  vote  of  the  last  Parliament,  as  if  there  had  been 
no  declaration  of  the  national  conviction  at  the  election,  as 
if  there  had  been  no  resignation  of  the  late  Government,  no 
abandonment  of  office  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
himself  without  soliciting  the  judgment  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, because  the  opinions  and  principles  on  which  he  sought 
to  govern  Ireland,  and  which  he  has  set  forth  with  great  force 
to-night,  were  opinions  and  principles  which  he  knew  could 
not  be  accepted  by  the  country.  I  might,  indeed,  say,  as 
far  as  the  right  honourable  gentleman  is  concerned,  it  appears, 
after  all,  that  the  appeal  made  the  other  night  by  my  right 
honourable  friend  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade  was 
utterly  vain — for,  with  respect  to  the  right  honourable  gentle- 
man, there  is  no  Irish  crisis,  and  there  is  no  Irish  question. 
All  he  says  we  want  is  a  few  years  of  peaceful  industry,  as 
though  peaceful  industry  can  be  adopted  at  a  moment's 
notice  by  a  whole  people,  or  else,  if  not  so  adopted,  the 
entire  responsibility  for  the  want  of  it,  and  for  the  evils  that 
may  ensue,  rests  with  that  people  itself,  and  in  no  respect 
with  those  under  whose  tutelage,  under  whose  care,  and 
under  whose  government  that  people  has  been  for  the  last 
six  hundred  years.  Upon  this  point  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  has  materially  retrograded.  For  him  there  is  no 
Irish  question  now,  but  surely  there  was  an  Irish  question 
last  year  when  he  was  a  member  of  a  Cabinet  sitting  upon 

12 — (2l7l) 


178  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

this  Bench,  and  heard  in  silence  the  speech  of  Lord  Mayo, 
also  a  member  of  the  Cabinet,  in  which  Lord  Mayo  asserted 
the  gravity  of  this  Irish  question,  and  did  not  tell  us  we 
were  to  bring  home  to  the  door  of  the  Irish  peasant,  and 
there  leave,  the  whole  charge  of  the  evils  and  mischief 
with  which  Ireland  teems.  Surely  there  was  an  Irish 
question  when  the  right  honourable  gentleman  heard  Lord 
Mayo  tell  us  that  he  thought  the  state  of  the  land  question 
so  grave  that  he  should  introduce  a  Bill  on  the  following 
Monday — though,  unfortunately,  we  never  saw  the  Bill — 
giving  to  Irish  tenants  compensation  for  their  improvements, 
and  when,  with  respect  to  education,  he  told  us  that  the  time 
was  come  when  it  would  be  well  to  found  a  Roman  Catholic 
University,  supported  from  the  Consolidated  Fund  ;  and  when 
thirdly,  with  respect  to  the  Church  question,  so  far  from  seeing 
that  happy,  beneficent  state  of  things  which  the  right  honour- 
able gentleman  delights  to  contemplate,  he  said  that  there 
were  serious  evils,  that  the  absence  of  religious  equality  was 
a  grievance,  and  that  there  would  be  no  objection  to  remove 
that  grievance  and  that  religious  inequality,  provided  it  were 
done  by  the  endowment  of  new  Churches  and  not  by  the 
disendowment  of  old  ones.  I  am  sorry  to  remind  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  in  this  somewhat  pointed  mannei  of 
the  difference  in  his  conduct  now,  when  he  is  loosened  from  the 
trammels  of  office  and  enjoys  the  freedom  of  Opposition. 
The  right  honourable  gentleman,  having  recovered  his  freedom, 
makes  a  very  liberal  use  of  it,  for  he  seems  to  think  he  has 
nothing  to  do  but  to  state  that  if  there  have  been  any  evils 
connected  with  the  people  of  Ireland,  they  have  been  removed 
long  ago,  and  that  it  is  invidious  to  lead  us  to  beheve  that  any 
of  the  evils  remain,  and  further  that  if,  in  fact,  there  are  any 
evils  remaining,  no  part  of  the  responsibility  rests  with  us, 
and  that  the  whole  responsibility  is  upon  the  shoulders  of  the 
people  of  Ireland  and  of  her  clergy.  Our  situation,  certainly, 
is  broadly  different  from  that  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman. 
He  draws  this  hopeless  picture,  and  for  it  he  does  not  offer 
even  the  shadow  of  a  remedy  ;  but  he  hinted  that  he  had  a 
right  to  assume  that  some  measure  would  pass  to  put  the 
Church  Establishment  in  Ireland  in  a  satisfactory  condition. 
If  I  may  say  so  without  offence,  I  think  that  this  is  a  most 
audacious  assumption  to  be  made  by  a  public  man.     Not  to 


GLADSTONE  179 

cite  any  measure,  carefully  to  avoid  identifying  himself  with 
its  provisions,  in  no  way  explaining  the  propositions  which 
he  would  have  brought  forward,  making  himself  responsible 
for  nothing,  not  having  said  so  much  as  this — that  evils  of 
any  kind  would  have  been  redressed  by  it,  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  thinks  that  he  is  entitled  to  assume  that  a  measure 
has  been  imagined  and  invented,  which,  if  he  has  imagined 
and  invented  it,  he  takes  care  not  to  describe,  and  that  having 
been  so  imagined  and  invented  it  would  have  been  passed  into 
a  law,  and  that  it  would  have  had  an  operation  which  would 
be  for  the  purposes  of  his  argument  and  for  those  purposes 
alone.  I  think  that  I  am  justified  in  saying  that  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  offers  us  nothing.  He  has  presented 
to  us  a  sad  and  grievous  picture  ;  but  I  think  it  is  so  unjust 
to  the  people  of  Ireland  as  to  amount  to  a  libel  on  their 
character.  He  has  nothing  to  suggest  or  promise  by  way  of 
producing  a  better  state  of  things  beyond  that  salutary 
precept  that  he  inculcates,  that  habits  of  industry,  and  a  uni- 
form regard  for  the  laws  should  be  adopted  by  the  people. 
Our  position  is  very  different.  We  do  not  see  in  the  state  of 
Ireland  anything  but  the  aggravated  result  of  the  inveterate 
mischiefs  which  raged  with  fury  in  these  islands  until  within 
the  last  generation,  and  which,  though  abated  in  many  and 
important  respects,  have  left  behind  so  much  of  painful  and 
angry  recollections,  and  so  much  also  of  actual  difficulty  and 
suffering  and  grievance,  while  as  yet  no  sufficient  attempt 
has  been  made  to  apply  a  remedy,  that  we  have  had  reason  to 
regard  the  condition  of  Ireland  as  a  problem  beyond  our  powers 
to  solve.  We  have,  of  course,  as  the  people  of  Ireland  have, 
to  lament,  and  as  everyone  has  to  lament  in  himself,  the  cor- 
ruptions, the  impurities,  and  the  weaknesses  of  human  nature  ; 
but  those  imperfections  have  been  found  in  equal  proportion 
in  their  rulers,  and  it  is  an  axiom  in  politics  that  where  these 
inveterate  mischiefs  prevail,  and  have  prevailed  for  centuries, 
the  final  judgment  of  posterity,  and  the  sentence  of  just  men 
will  be  that  the  chief  responsibility  lies  where  the  chief  power 
has  been — with  the  rulers  of  the  country,  and  with  the  classes 
possessing  property  in  it.  We,  therefore,  Sir,  attempt  to 
propose  a  remedy,  and  that  remedy  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  knows  must  be  proposed  piecemeal.  We  cannot 
lay   upon   the  table  at  one  and  the  same  moment  all  the 


180  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

measures  for  which  the  state  of  Ireland  appears  to  us  to  call. 
We  come  forward,  therefore,  with  a  Bill  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
estabhshing  and  disendowing  the  now  Established  Church  of 
Ireland.  Of  course,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  would  be  merciless  and  unsparing  in 
his  criticisms  on  the  details  of  the  Bill.  I  am  sorry  it  has  not 
been  better  understood.  He  complains,  for  example — and 
that  was  the  main  head  of  his  complaint — that  the  annuities 
we  offer  to  incumbents  are  accompanied  with  conditions  of 
service.  Has  he  inquired  of  his  friends  in  the  Irish  Church 
whether  they  would  have  liked  that  those  annuities  should  be 
absolutely  given  ?  No,  Sir,  he  has  not  ;  at  least  I  will  ven- 
ture to  say  he  knows  not  the  sentiment  in  the  Irish  Church 
on  the  subject.  But  it  has  been  our  duty  to  make  inquiry 
into  the  matter,  and  the  truth  is  that,  consistently  with  the 
very  sentiments  expressed  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
near  me,  and  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite 
thinks  we  have  abjured,  we  do  attach  conditions  of  service 
to  the  annuities  of  incumbents  for  the  sake  of  their  con- 
gregations— yes,  for  the  sake  of  their  congregations,  who, 
we  thought,  had  a  right  to  retain  the  benefit  of  their 
labours,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  religious  body  with  which 
they  are  connected,  and  we  think  that  if  we  had  proposed 
these  annuities  without  conditions,  and  knowing  that  to  be 
the  general  opinion,  we  should  have  done  much  to  dis- 
organise and  possibly  to  destroy.  But  if  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  opposite  wishes  to  bring  this  particular  matter  to  a 
test,  let  him  give  notice  of  an  Amendment  in  Committee  to 
substitute  for  the  proposition  we  make,  an  unconditional, 
instead  of  a  conditional  annuity,  and  I  venture  to  say  he  will 
find  himself  mistaken  as  to  the  result.  [Mr.  Gathome  Hardy  : 
You  do  not  let  the  incumbent  take  other  preferment.]  I 
say  he  can  take  other  preferment  in  concert  with  the 
authorities  of  his  Church.  Without  any  interference  from 
us  to  settle  with  the  authorities  of  his  Church  the  terms 
of  his  commutation  he  may  retain  his  right  under  it 
to  the  end,  and  take  any  preferment  he  likes.  I,  therefore, 
challenge  the  right  honourable  gentleman  to  give  notice  of 
the  Amendment  at  which  he  has  glanced,  when  we  shaU  see 
what  left-handed  service  he  has  been  endeavouring  to  give 
to  his  friends  in  the  Irish  Church,  in  whom  he,  no   doubt, 


GLADSTONE  1«1 

takes  a  great  interest.  The  House  may  be  assured  that  I  shall 
not  follow  the  right  honourable  gentleman  in  detail  over  the 
extensive  ground  he  has  traversed  in  his  able  speech.  I  think 
that,  so  far  as  criticism  on  the  details  are  concerned,  there 
are  none  of  them  on  which  the  opinion  we  are  to  give  to-night 
can  possibly  depend,  and,  therefore,  it  is  better  to  let  them  pass 
by  in  the  fewest  words.  I  will  only  say  that  I  think  when 
we  come  into  Committee  it  will  not  be  found  practicable  to 
induce  the  House  to  see,  as  he  sees,  that  in  the  £350,000  or 
£400,000 — it  is  somewhere  between  the  two — which  the 
4,500,000  of  Roman  Catholics  in  Ireland  may  get  out  of  this 
arrangement,  there  is  any  monstrous  or  undue  favouritism, 
while  the  £6,500,000,  besides  the  churches  and  glebe  houses, 
may  go  to  the  ministers  or  servants  of  the  Church,  or  the  body 
representing  it.  There  is  nothing  to  be  read,  according  to 
him,  but  the  evidence  of  our  harshness  and  injustice.  With 
regard  to  the  disputed  question  of  the  date  of  the  private 
endowments  of  1660,  I  know  very  well  that  this  is  a  matter 
on  which  much  may  be  said  pro  and  con.  But  I  own  to  my 
belief  that  if  the  opponents  of  this  Bill  succeed  in  shaking 
the  conviction  I  entertain  with  regard  to  the  propriety  of 
the  choice  of  that  epoch,  I,  for  one,  am  more  hkely  to  be 
shaken  in  the  sense  of  doubting  whether  we  ought  to  go  so 
far  back  than  in  the  sense  of  raising  the  question  of  being 
driven  back  farther.  ("No,  no.")  I  may  claim  to  know  some- 
thing of  the  matter  when  I  am  stating  what  are  likely  to  be  the 
processes  of  my  own  mind.  I  am  not  so  audacious  as  to  assume 
that  the  processes  of  the  minds  of  honourable  gentlemen 
opposite  may  sympathise  with  my  own.  Several  gentlemen 
said  that  it  would  be  extremely  unjust  to  charge  the  Maynooth 
compensation  and  the  Regium  Donum  upon  the  Church  Fund 
of  Ireland  rather  than  upon  the  Consolidated  Fund  of  this 
country.  It  has  also  been  said  that  the  proceeding  we  have 
adopted  is  not  in  conformity  with  the  pledges  we  have  given, 
and  some  have  said,  I  think,  with  the  Preamble  of  the  Bill. 
At  the  proper  time,  we  shall  be  able  to  show  that  this  pro- 
ceeding is  in  strict  conformity  with  all  the  words  that  we  have 
spoken,  and  with  the  Preamble  of  the  Bill.  Neither  of  these 
things,  perhaps,  much  affects  the  merits  of  the  question  ; 
but  upon  the  merits  we  shall  state  to  the  House  at  the  proper 
time    the    reasons — and    I    think    they    are    sufficient    and 


182  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

conclusive  reasons — which  have  led  us  to  propose  that  these 
compensations  should  be  paid  out  of  the  Church  Fund  of 
Ireland.  Without  in  any  manner  raising  a  prejudice  to  the 
question  which  the  Irish  members  may  think  fit  to  found  on 
the  subject  of  a  claim  on  the  Consolidated  Fund,  or  any  other 
claim  of  a  financial  kind  on  behalf  of  that  country,  that  is  not 
one  of  the  corner-stones  of  the  Bill.  I  do  think  that  justice 
requires  us  to  hold  firmly — subject  always  to  consideration  of 
mere  detail — by  the  moderate  compensation  we  propose  for 
Roman  Catholics  and  Presbyterians  ;  but  as  regards  the  ques- 
tion of  the  source  from  which  those  compensations  are  to  be 
derived,  there  is  no  such  foregone  conclusion,  I  presume  to 
say,  in  the  minds  of  the  Government  as  to  prevent  the  fairest 
and  freest  discussion  of  the  question. 

So  much  for  the  criticism  upon  our  plan  in  its  details.  What 
is  far  more  important  is  to  consider  what  are  the  plans  or 
methods,  if  any,  that  have  been  placed  in  competition  with 
the  plan  of  the  Government  as  the  best  method  of  dealing  with 
the  great  ecclesiastical  difficulty  of  Ireland.  And  I  have 
shown  that  the  right  honourable  gentleman  who  has  just  sat 
down  has  no  method  whatever.  Nor  can  I  fail  to  remark  one 
most  extraordinary  circumstance.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  upon  every  occasion,  during  the  debates  of  last  year,  our 
conduct  in  proposing  resolutions  and  legislation  with  respect 
to  the  Irish  Church  was  denounced  by  gentlemen  opposite 
not  only  as  unwise,  but  as  eminently  factious.  And  what 
was  the  reason  adduced  in  proof  that  our  conduct  was  thus 
factious  ?  It  was  this — that  the  question  of  the  Irish  Church 
had  been  referred  to  a  Royal  Commission,  that  the  Com- 
mission was  to  produce  a  plan  for  its  settlement,  and  we,  without 
waiting  for  their  plan,  insisted  upon  propositions  of  our  own. 
That  was  the  proof  of  the  factious  character  of  our  con- 
duct. At  different  times  during  the  session — when,  I  suppose, 
it  was  thought  expedient  in  connection  with  the  progress  of 
debate — hopes  were  held  out  that  the  Commission  was  very 
hard  at  work  and  hkely  to  report — I  remember  the  Home 
Secretary  promising — almost  immediately.  However,  we  were 
not  drawn  off  from  the  track  ;  and  I  am  thankful  to  say  we 
went  on  with  our  work  and  performed  it,  as  to  all  that 
depended  upon  us,  giving  thereby  to  the  country  those  pledges 
of  the  reahty  and  sohdity  of  our  intentions  which  enabled  the 


GLADSTONE  183 

country  to  meet  us  in  a  corresponding  spirit,  resulting  in  that 
manifestation  of  the  national  will  of  which  we  are  to  look  for 
another  sign  in  the  division  of  to-night.  The  Report  of  the 
Commission  has  appeared.  No  doubt,  every  gentleman  on  that 
side  has  read  not  only  the  Report,  but  the  whole  of  the  Sched- 
ules. They  must,  every  one  of  them,  be  intimately  acquainted 
with  it,  and  yet  not  a  man  in  this  debate  has  ventured  to  set 
up  a  mode  of  deahng  with  the  Church  question  of  Ireland  on 
the  plan  proposed  by  the  Report  of  the  Commission.  Surely 
that  is  a  fact  remarkable  in  itself  ;  but  it  is  more  remarkable 
still  A^hen  you  consider  whom  you  have  got  in  the  House — 
not  the  official  head  of  the  Commission,  but  its  working  mind. 
Great  injustice  is  done  to  the  right  honourable  and  learned 
gentleman,  the  member  for  Dublin  University  (Dr.  Ball)  if 
he  is  not  the  father  of  that  Report.  And  yet,  with  a  total 
absence  of  parental  feeling,  he  delivers,  for  two  hours,  a  speech 
of  the  utmost  ability  and  learning  in  this  House,  going  over 
everything,  condemning  on  this  side,  approving  on  that, 
having  a  word  to  say  for  all  things  and  for  everybody,  except 
for  the  Report  of  his  own  Commission.  Really,  Sir,  if  it  were 
possible  for  an  inanimate  production  to  be  conscious  of  that 
sort  of  compassion  which  we  ought  to  bestow  on  the  woes  and 
miseries  of  a  fellow-creature,  I  should  feel  it  all  for  the  Report 
of  this  Commission.  Ushered  into  the  world  with  promisings 
and  trumpetings  sufficient  for  a  Royal  birth — the  period  for 
the  preparation  of  its  entering  into  light  equal  to  that  taken 
by  the  longest-lived  animals  in  the  business  of  gestation — it 
was  considered  by  every  member  of  the  great  party  then  con- 
stituting the  Government  to  be  certain  to  contain  in  itself 
the  means  of  solving  this  most  difficult  problem  ;  then  to  issue 
forth,  and  to  be  brought  into  the  hght,  to  be  treated  worse 
than  the  child  of  a  beggar  woman,  for  even  such  a  child  would 
be  looked  after  by  the  parish — this  Report  seems  to  be  put 
behind  the  fire,  and  the  act  of  murder  is  performed  by  the 
hands  of  the  father.  The  Report  of  the  Commission,  however, 
would  not  have  attracted  this  kind  of  criticism  for  the  purpose 
of  attempting  to  fix  anything  in  the  nature  of  ridicule  upon  the 
labours  of  the  persons  who  composed  that  Commission.  They 
have  failed,  and  failed  egregiously,  not  from  their  own  fault,  but 
because  they  undertook  a  hopeless  problem.  They  under- 
took the  task  of  reforming  that  which  is  irreformable — that 


184  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

which  you  cannot  reform  in  one  sense  without  worsening  its 
case  in,  perhaps,  twenty  other  senses.  If  they  committed  an 
error,  it  was  in  undertaking  to  examine  the  question  of 
reconstructing  an  institution  hke  the  Estabhshed  Church  in 
Ireland,  that  has  entirely  outlived  its  day.  It  had  outlived 
its  day,  in  my  opinion,  when  it  became  evident  that  the  plans 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  could  not  possibly  be  fulfilled  for  the  con- 
version of  the  people  of  Ireland  to  the  Protestant  religion. 
They  may  have  erred  in  this  respect.  But  I  refer  to  this 
Report  because  the  plans  it  has  proposed  represent  to  us  the 
utmost  and  the  best  that  the  ablest  men  can  do,  fortified 
with  Government  authority,  having  the  advantage  of  a 
lengthened  period  of  time  for  consideration,  and  unbroken 
consultation  ;  and  when  such  a  Report  as  this  proceeds  from 
such  men  as  these,  and  is  so  treated  by  its  parents,  I  say  we 
are  justified,  if  ever  there  was  a  negative  demonstration  in  the 
world,  in  saying  that  the  time  has  come  when  ever}'  man 
standing  on  this  floor  is  entitled  and  bound  to  say  that  what 
is  called  the  reform  of  the  Church  of  Ireland,  by  cutting  and 
clipping  and  paring,  by  taking  away  a  little  here,  and  putting 
in  a  little  there,  and  shifting  money  from  one  part  of  the  country 
to  another,  has  become  utterly  hopeless,  and  ought  to  be 
discarded  from  the  category  of  those  objects  which  are  to  be 
taken  into  the  view  of  practical  politicians.  The  right 
honourable  and  learned  gentleman,  I  must  say,  I  think,  treated 
the  Report  more  favourably  than  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  who  has  just  sat  down,  for  he  did  point  out  methods 
of  proceeding  in  Ireland.  The  right  honourable  gentleman 
disclaimed  any  intention  of  offering  any  disrespect  to  the 
Roman  Catholics  in  Ireland.  I  accept  that  disclaimer  in  good 
part — it  was  most  sincerely  offered,  and  not  only  offered, 
but  proved  ;  because  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  instead 
of  that  niggardly  line  of  comment,  so  to  call  it,  which  has  been 
adopted  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  the  late  Home 
Secretary  (Mr.  Gathome  Hardy),  who  thinks  he  can  possibly 
scrape  two  or  three  years  from  the  Maynooth  compensation, 
commented  not  only  in  a  different,  but  in  a  contradictory, 
sense,  and  said  that  the  proposal  in  respect  of  Maynooth  was 
insufficient  and  ungenerous.  The  right  honourable  gentleman 
announced  pretty  distinctly  a  mode  of  dealing  with  the  Church 
question  in  Ireland.     I  think  that  he  was,  in  some  degree,  in 


GLADSTONE  185 

this  matter  a  disciple  of  the  school  of  reticence,  but  he  certainly 
went  beyond  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  the  member  for 
Buckinghamshire.  The  right  honourable  gentleman,  the 
member  for  Buckinghamshire,  last  year  did  express  his 
opinions  at  the  time  when  we  heard  that  speech  from  Lord 
Mayo  ;  but  he  has  been  extremely  cautious  and  circumspect 
with  regard  to  the  repetition  of  those  opinions  ever  since.  Sir, 
when  we  cannot  live  on  the  food  placed  upon  the  table  we  must 
live  on  the  crumbs  that  fall  from  it.  In  dealing  with  the  real, 
substantial,  and  responsible  scheme  of  the  Government  for 
dealing  with  the  Irish  Church,  it  is  a  matter  of  great  importance 
to  know  whether  any  honourable  gentleman,  and  especially 
honourable  gentlemen  opposite,  have  on  any  occasion  brought 
any  scheme  into  competition  with  it.  The  honourable  member 
for  Mayo  (Mr.  Moore),  speaking  his  mind  like  a  man,  said  that 
he  tended  towards  an  endowment  of  the  three  churches — a 
general  endowment ;  and  my  honourable  friend,  the  member  for 
Galway  (Mr.  Gregory),  with  that  frankness  and  courage  which 
he  always  displays,  avowed  that  this  plan  of  general  endowment 
was  the  plan  and  the  policy  which  he  would  prefer,  though 
I  think  he  added  that  it  was  now  too  late  to  propose  it.  There 
can,  therefore,  be  no  room  for  hesitation  or  doubt  as  to  the 
policy  of  those  two  honourable  gentlemen,  though  both  I 
think  accompanied  their  opinions  with  the  expression  of  a 
fear  that  the  time  for  its  establishment  had  gone  by.  But 
when  I  come  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  member 
for  Buckinghamshire,  I  find  much  greater  difficulty  in  under- 
standing what  he  means  ;  because  he  said  that  one  of  the  great 
causes — indeed,  it  was  the  only  cause  he  mentioned — of  the 
discontent  and  disorder  in  Ireland  was  the  complaint  that 
she  had  one  unendowed  Church  and  clergy.  He  went  on  to 
say  that,  if  this  Bill  passed,  instead  of  having  one  unendowed 
Church  and  clergy,  we  should  have  three,  and  he  suggested 
that  this,  instead  of  being  a  remedy  for  a  mischief,  would  be 
a  means  of  aggravating  it.  I  am,  therefore,  driven  to  the 
conclusion  that  either  the  right  honourable  gentleman,  like 
his  colleague  who  sits  near  him  (Mr.  Gathorne  Hardy),  has 
no  plan  for  dealing  with  the  Church  of  Ireland  or  that,  if  he  has 
a  plan,  it  is  the  same  one  as  was  announced  by  his  Government 
from  these  benches  twelve  months  ago — the  plan  vulgarly 
called  "  levelling  up  " — leaving   the   Established  Church  her 


186  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

endowments,  raising  the  endowments  of  the  Presbyterians 
to  a  worthier  standard,  and  combining  that  with  a  hberal 
endowment  for  the  Roman  Cathohc  Church  in  Ireland.  This, 
at  all  events,  I  am  safe  in  saying  is  the  only  plan  indicated 
from  the  other  side.  I  have  heard  very  nearly  the  whole  of 
this  debate,  and  if  any  honourable  gentleman  has  intimated 
a  latent  kindness  for  the  Report  of  the  Commission,  and  I 
have  done  him  a  wrong  in  supposing  that  no  one  has  given 
such  an  intimation,  I  hope  he  will  forgive  me  ;  but,  as  far  as 
I  am  aware,  the  plan  of  endowing  the  three  Churches,  which 
must,  of  course,  be  accompanied  by  some  scheme  of  endow- 
ment for  the  Methodists  and  other  sects,  is  the  only  one — I 
will  not  say  laid  down — but  glanced  at  or  insinuated  as  a  rival 
to  the  plan  of  the  Government.  What  are  we  to  say  to  that 
plan  ?  It  is  to  be  disposed  of  very  briefly.  A  phrase  has  come 
into  use  among  some  of  the  Irish  clergy.  Some  of  them  say — 
"  We  are  prepared  to  accept  the  inevitable,"  but  I  have  not 
heard  that  any  of  them  have  said — "  We  are  prepared  to 
accept  the  impossible."  If  the  plan  of  the  three  Churches 
was  really  entertained  by  the  right  honourable  gentleman, 
why  was  it  not  announced  at  the  hustings — at  those  hustings 
where  every  effort  was  made  to  represent  us  as  being  in  secret 
league  with  the  Pope  of  Rome,  and  when  the  honour  and 
credit  of  Protestantism  were  in  nearly  every  case — to  his 
honour,  I  except  the  name  of  the  right  honourable  and  gallant 
gentleman  the  member  for  North  Lancashire  (Colonel  Wilson- 
Patten) — sought  to  be  monopolised  by  the  party  opposite  ? 
Why  was  not  this  plan,  which  is  the  only  one  about  which  they 
have  ventured  to  hint  as  a  remedy  for  the  Church  difficulties 
of  Ireland,  proposed,  or  at  least  mentioned,  at  the  hustings  ? 
The  voices  were  very  inarticulate  voices,  and  it  is  either  the 
plan  of  the  party  opposite — in  which  case,  as  it  is  an  impossible 
plan,  it  is  needless  to  discuss  it — or  they  have  no  plan  at  aU. 
My  honourable  and  learned  friend  the  member  for  Richmond 
(Sir  Roundell  Palmer)  came  to  the  rescue,  and  he  certainly 
proposed  a  plan,  the  product  of  a  mind  as  ingenuous  as  it  is 
powerful  and  accomplished,  which  was  received  as  a  kind  of 
godsend  by  a  large  number  of  honourable  gentlemen  opposite. 
As  every  suggestion  made  by  my  honourable  and  learned  friend 
is  entitled  to  respectful  consideration,  I  shall  not  apologise 
for  adverting  to  the  character  of  that  plan  even  at  this  late 


GLADSTONE  187 

hour.  The  opinions  of  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  are 
the  more  important,  because  his  doctrine  of  property  has  been 
much  accepted  by  authorities  and  speakers  on  the  other  side 
of  the  House,  and  because  of  the  general  cheering  with  which 
his  declaration  was  greeted.  I  understand  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  to  be  that 
property  given  for  the  purpose  and  use  of  a  portion  of  the  com- 
munity ought  not  to  be  withdrawn  from  that  portion  of  the 
community  except  in  certain  definite  cases.  One  of  those 
cases  I  imderstand  to  be  where  the  property  is  excessive 
in  amount,  in  which  case,  according  to  my  honourable  and 
learned  friend,  it  might  be  reduced.  Another  definite  case 
was  when  the  purpose  to  which  the  property  was  addressed 
was  either  absurd  or  bad  in  itself.  And  my  honourable  and 
learned  friend,  I  think,  finally  glanced  at  a  third  cause  which 
would  justify  the  interposition  of  the  Legislature — such  mis- 
conduct in  the  administration  of  the  funds  as  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  warrant  a  forfeiture.  Though  I  think  that  enumeration 
very  well  as  far  as  it  goes,  I  must  claim  on  the  part  of  the 
Legislature  a  larger  and  more  extended  right,  and  acknow- 
ledge myself  bound  by  a  much  more  comprehensive  duty.  It 
seems  to  me  that  when  property  has  been  given  for  a  purpose 
that  is  not  attained,  and  that  cannot  be  attained,  it  is  then  the 
duty  of  the  Legislature  to  see  that  the  property  is  no  longer 
wasted.  I  am  putting  the  matter  low,  because,  instead  of 
being  no  longer  wasted,  if  I  were  to  state  the  full  justification 
of  our  measure  it  would  be  rather  this — where — even  without 
the  fault  of  the  parties  immediately  concerned,  the  actual 
use  and  administration  of  a  property,  being  totally  different 
from  that  for  which  it  is  given,  is  likewise  attended  with  the 
gravest  political  and  social  mischiefs,  then  the  obligation  of 
the  Legislature  to  interfere  is  imperative.  So  far  I  listened 
with  satisfaction  to  the  speech  of  the  honourable  and  learned 
gentleman,  for  he  rose  above  the  purely  legal  doctrine  of  trust, 
and  claimed  that  there  was  a  trust  for  the  whole  community 
of  the  Church.  I  agree  with  the  honourable  and  learned 
gentleman  in  his  extension  of  the  doctrine  ;  but  I  ask  him  to 
go  with  me  to  extend  it  still  further,  and  to  say  that  there  is 
a  trust — whether  in  the  legal  sense  I  know  not,  but  in  the 
political,  the  social,  the  moral  sense  there  is  a  trust  impressed 
upon  this  property,  from  first  to  last,  for  the  benefit  of  the 


188  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

nation.  It  was  for  the  nation  that  the  property  was  given. 
It  is  true  it  was  given  to  corporations.  Yes  ;  but  why  ?  Not 
that  they  might  enjoy  it  as  private  property,  but  that  they 
might  hold  it  on  condition  of  duty.  They  were,  as  the 
honourable  and  learned  gentleman  truly  says,  only  convenient 
symbols — convenient  media  for  its  conveyance  from  genera- 
tion to  generation.  The  real  meaning,  scope,  and  object  was 
that  through  them  it  should  be  applied  for  all  time  to  the 
benefit  of  the  entire  population  of  the  kingdom,  and  this  was 
a  natural  and  intelligent  arrangement  when  the  entire  nation 
was  of  one  faith.  In  proportion  as  Dissent  and  difference  of 
opinion  creep  into  the  country,  the  foundation  of  the  religious 
Establishment  so  endowed  comes  to  be  by  degrees  more  or 
less  weakened  and  impaired,  partly  in  proportion  as  the 
number  of  Dissenters  is  strong,  partly  in  proportion  as  they  are 
disposed  or  not  disposed  to  acquiesce  in  the  continuance  of 
the  Establishment.  But  when  we  come  to  a  case  like  that  of 
Ireland  ;  when  that  which  was  given  for  the  whole  people 
has  come  to  be  appropriated  for  the  enjoyment  of  a  mere 
handful  of  the  people  ;  and  when,  at  the  same  time,  the  pro- 
perty so  enjoyed,  while  it  remains  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
now  hold  it,  is  associated  with  the  recollection  of  all  the 
grievances  and  bitter  misfortunes  that  have  afflicted  that 
country,  so  that  the  chain  of  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  history 
of  Ireland  consists  in  the  fact  of  two  strands,  one  of  which 
cannot  possibly  be  unwound  and  separated  from  the  other, 
I  must  decline  to  go  into  any  court  of  justice,  created  for  the 
purpose  of  administering  the  laws,  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
rules  by  which  we  are  bound.  We  are  called  to  a  function 
and  avocation,  which,  in  my  opinion,  is  a  yet  higher  one  ;  we 
are  to  look  for  the  principles  of  right  in  a  broader,  and,  for  such 
a  case,  a  truer,  aspect,  and  from  that  responsibility  we  cannot 
escape.  We  ought  to  be  grateful  to  my  honourable  and  learned 
friend  for  the  distance  in  respect  of  that  portion  of  our  journey 
which  he  is  content  to  travel  in  our  company,  because,  con- 
sidering the  hard  words  of  which  we  are  the  object,  I  think  it 
requires  some  courage  on  his  part  to  acknowledge  us  and  to 
recognise  us  in  any  degree.  My  honourable  and  learned  friend 
gives  up  the  Establishment  of  the  Church.  I  do  not  wonder 
that  my  right  honourable  friend  the  member  for  the  University 
of  Cambridge  (Mr.  Walpole)  entered  a  protest  on  this  subject. 


GLADSTONE  189 

In  giving  up  the  establishment  of  the  Church,  my  honourable 
and  learned  friend  gives  up  the  greater  part,  and  I  think  the 
higher  part,  I  am  bound  to  say  the  higher  and  the  worthier 
part,  of  the  whole  argument.  All  that  relates  to  the  conse- 
cration of  the  State  by  its  union  with  the  Church — all  that 
relates  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Crown — all  that  relates  to  the 
constitutional  argument  as  well  as  to  the  religious  argument, 
disappears  along  with  disestablishment ;  and  my  honourable 
and  learned  friend  becomes  open  to  that  withering  accusation 
which  was  delivered  in  a  moment  of  extraordinary  fervour 
by  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  member  for  Bucking- 
hamshire last  year,  when  he  described  that  awful  conspiracy 
between  Romanists  and  Ritualists  for  undermining  the  Throne 
by  the  denial  of  the  Royal  supremacy.  But  permit  me  to 
say  the  Royal  supremacy  is  not  denied  or  taken  away  by  this 
Bill.  The  Royal  supremacy  has  been  developed  in  various 
forms  at  various  periods  of  our  history.  It  is  the  greatest 
mistake  to  suppose  that  since  the  Reformation  the  Royal 
supremacy  has  always  been  flowing,  as  it  were,  through  the 
same  channel.  Most  important  and  vital  changes  have  been 
made  with  respect  to  the  methods  of  its  operation  ;  but  I 
know  of  no  legal  or  authoritative  definition  of  the  law  of 
supremacy,  except  it  be  that  which  describes  it  as  the  funda- 
mental principle  which  makes  the  Sovereign  of  this  country 
supreme  over  all  persons  and  in  all  causes,  ecclesiastical  as  well 
as  civil.  That  which  is  an  ecclesiastical  cause  at  one  period 
of  our  history,  may  not  be  an  ecclesiastical  cause  at  another 
period  of  our  history  ;  that  which  was  an  ecclesiastical  cause 
before  the  Court  of  High  Commission  has  no  existence  as  such 
in  the  present  generation  ;  but  so  long  as  the  Queen  is  supreme 
in  every  cause  that  can  be  brought  into  a  court  for  the  purpose 
whether  of  primary  adjudication  or  of  review,  so  long  the  Royal 
supremacy  exists.  If  anyone  be  prepared  to  question  that 
doctrine,  I  ask  them  whether  the  Royal  supremacy  exists  in 
Scotland  at  this  moment  or  not.  If  you  hold  that  by  this  Bill 
the  Royal  supremacy  is  set  aside,  I  defy  you  to  maintain  that 
there  is  a  single  rag  or  thread  of  Royal  supremacy  in  Scotland. 
My  honourable  and  learned  friend  is  prepared — I  do  not  say  that 
he  proposes — but  he  is  prepared  to  give  up  the  estates  of  the 
sees,  the  property  of  the  Commissioners,  and  he  says  he  is 
prepared  to  give  up  certain  of  the  parochial  endowments  of 


190  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

benefices.  Of  course,  it  would  be  impossible  to  fix  any  figure 
off-hand  with  precision  ;  but  I  believe  he  confined  these  cases 
of  parochial  endowments  to  populations  of  two  hundred  per- 
sons. Whether  he  intended  to  reserve  out  of  the  revenues  of 
these  benefices  any  portion  of  the  supply  of  spiritual  instnic- 
tion  and  ordinances,  I  do  not  know,  and  I  do  not  think  he 
said  ;  but  in  this  way  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  gives 
up  one-third  of  the  Church  property  of  Ireland,  and  he  pro- 
poses to  retain  the  rest  upon  a  rule  which  is,  at  any  rate, 
perfectly  intelligible. 

My  honourable  and  learned  friend  intimated  that  he  would 
thus  dispose  of  about  one-half  of  that  property.  I  am 
extremely  glad  to  hear  it  is  one-half  instead  of  a  third.  I  am 
delighted  to  hear  he  accompanies  us  only  one  inch  further  on 
our  road.  It  gives  me  hope  that  possibly  some  day  he  will 
greatly  improve  his  fractions.  But  my  honourable  and  learned 
friend  would  retain  the  endowments  in  those  cases  where  there 
is  what  I  may  call  a  congregation,  not  as  denying  that  twenty 
people,  or  even  ten  people,  may  be  a  Christian  congregation  ; 
but,  using  the  expression  in  the  sense  that  he  employs  it  when 
he  speaks  of  "  a  substantive  congregation,"  of  which  he  thinks 
the  law  may  take  notice  and  cognisance.  In  this  case  my  hon- 
ourable and  learned  friend  would  retain  the  endowments.  The 
first  question  which  I  should  like  to  ask  my  honourable  and 
learned  friend  is,  whether  there  is  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  or 
in  the  history  of  legislation,  any  precedent  for  such  a  pro- 
ceeding as  he  proposes  ?  And  the  reason  I  put  that  question  to 
him  is  because  he  puts  that  question  to  us.  Now  I  think  it  is 
quite  plain  that  he  has  no  precedent  for  it.  I  would  not,  how- 
ever, condemn  it  on  that  ground  alone,  because  in  the  circum- 
stances of  Ireland,  such  as  they  are,  we  are  dealing  with  a  case 
for  which,  I  believe,  there  is  no  precedent  in  the  civilised  world. 
My  honourable  and  learned  friend  certainly  will  not  tell  me 
that  the  case  in  which  the  courts  of  the  United  States  adjudged 
to  the  Episcopal  Church  of  New  York  the  property  of  which, 
I  believe,  the  value  at  the  time  of  the  adjudication  was  some- 
where about  £2,000  a  year — my  honourable  and  learned  friend, 
I  say,  will  not  tell  me  that  that  was  a  case  in  point  ;  especially 
upon  this  ground,  that  although  that  was  a  proof  of  a  great 
regard  of  the  American  Government  for  corporate  property,  it 
was  not  property  which  has  belonged  to  a  religious  communion 


GLADSTONE  191 

of  the  State  of  New  York  in  the  character  of  an  Estab- 
lished Church.  My  honourable  and  learned  friend  will  correct 
me  if  I  am  wrong  ;  but  I  do  not  think  that  the  Anglican 
Church  was  ever  an  Established  Church  in  the  State  of  New 
York  as  it  was  in  Virginia,  and  therefore  it  was  a  private  society 
in  which  this  endowment  was  continued.  Well,  let  us  see  how 
this  case  stands  in  other  matters.  My  honourable  and  learned 
friend  by  giving  up  the  Establishment  gives  up  the  argument 
with  regard  to  State  religion  and  supremacy.  Now,  with 
respect  to  the  means  of  spreading  the  doctrines  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, how  does  his  plan  recommend  itself  ?  If  we  are  to  main- 
tain the  Established  Church  for  the  purpose  of  spreading  the 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  we  ought  to  maintain  it  all 
the  more  assiduously  and  zealously  in  those  places  where  it 
is  improbable  that  it  would  be  able  to  maintain  itself.  Even 
the  right  honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Gathorne  Hardy)  has 
come  down  somewhat  from  the  high  ground  of  last  year,  when 
he  spoke  of  its  being  the  glory  of  the  Church  to  hold  out  the 
light  of  the  Reformation  all  over  Ireland,  and  he  seems  now 
to  be  disposed  to  withdraw.  (Mr.  Gathorne  Hardy  :  No,  no  !) 
Well,  then,  he  does  not  withdraw  ;  but  wishes  to  keep  it  in 
every  parish  in  the  land  ;  but  my  honourable  and  learned 
friend  does  not  propose  to  do  so — and  even  if  he  were  to  have 
certain  flying  curates  passing  from  one  village  to  another, 
serving  different  congregations  as  they  passed  along  in  the 
course  of  the  Sunday,  my  honourable  and  learned  friend  will 
never  tell  me  that  this  is  the  plan  he  would  recommend  for 
gaining  proselytes,  or  the  way  he  thinks  the  work  of  the  Irish 
Church  should  be  carried  out. 

Well,  let  me  try  the  plan  of  my  honourable  and  learned 
friend  by  the  rules  of  general  prudence.  When  you  have  a 
fund  to  distribute  and  have  not  enough  for  everybody,  to  whom 
are  you  to  give  it  ?  Is  it  to  those  who  want  it  and  cannot  do 
without  it,  or  to  those  who  do  not  want  it  and  can  supply 
themselves  ?  I  should  certainly  have  thought  that  on  those 
principles  the  proper  course  was  the  former  ;  but  my  honour- 
able and  learned  friend's  plan  takes  away  funds  from  those 
scattered  and  poor  Protestants  on  whose  behalf  appeals  are 
constantly  made  to  our  commiseration,  and  gives  it  to  those 
congregations  which,  according  to  every  understood  principle 
of  reckoning  in  such  matters,  are  capable  of  providing  religious 


192  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

worship  and  religious  instruction  for  themselves.  Well,  how 
does  this  plan  stand  as  regards  a  great  object  which  we  have  in 
view — namely,  that  of  conciliating  the  Roman  Catholic 
population  of  Ireland  ?  My  honourable  and  learned  friend 
must  know  that  it  is  not  the  possession  of  a  larger  or  smaller 
portion  of  these  endowments  as  national  endowments  that  is 
objected  to  by  the  Roman  Cathohc  population.  It  is  that  they 
should  be  held  by  the  Protestants  at  all,  and  if  he  ruthlessly 
cuts  away  a  moiety  of  the  endowments,  but  leaves  the  other 
moiety  in  their  hands,  the  cause  of  offence  remains,  and  all 
the  festering  recollections  connected  with  it  would  still  continue 
to  afflict  the  mass  of  the  Irish  people.  My  honourable  and 
learned  friend  criticised  the  Bill  with  respect  to  the  observance 
of  the  local  principle.  He  quoted  from  a  speech  of  mine  a 
declaration  in  which  I  had  said  that  in  my  opinion  it  was 
dangerously  resembhng  an  act  of  pubHc  plunder  if  on  the 
part  of  that  handful  of  the  Irish  people  who  are  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  ecclesiastical  endowments  we  were  to  take  the 
tithes  of  a  parish  in  Mayo  or  Galway  to  supply  the  wants  of 
wealthy  congregations  in  Dublin  or  Belfast ;  and  he  thought 
he  had  found — what  I  am  quite  sure  he  will  be  forward  to  admit 
when  the  matter  is  explained,  he  has  not  found — a  great  devia- 
tion in  this  Bill  from  that  regard  for  the  local  purposes  of  these 
funds,  which  I  had  so  strongly  professed.  If  we  had  found  it 
necessary  to  centralise  those  funds  for  a  purpose  of  national 
and  general  benefit,  it  would  have  been  a  totally  different 
matter  from  transferring  them  from  the  handful  of  Protestants 
in  one  neighbourhood  for  the  uses  of  another  handful  in  another ; 
but  we  have  done  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  I  stated  to 
the  House,  in  introducing  the  measure,  that,  in  our  view,  it 
was  essential  to  the  satisfactory  character  of  any  plan  for  dis- 
posing of  the  residue  of  the  property  that  it  should  be  equal 
in  its  application  to  the  various  parts  of  Ireland,  and  if  my 
honourable  and  learned  friend  examines  the  matter  he  will 
find  that  it  is  not  possible  to  devise  any  scheme  which  shall 
more  exactly  redistribute  the  benefit  of  these  funds  than  the 
scheme  we  have  proposed.  There  is  not  one  purpose  to  which 
we  propose  to  apply  them  that  does  not  reach  over  the  whole 
of  Ireland  ;  there  is  not  one  purpose  that  does  not  regard  and 
concern  wants  that  are  arising  day  by  day  in  every  parish  of 
every  county,  nor  is  there  one  to  which  we  do  not  propose 


GLADSTONE  193 

by  this  plan  to  give  an  easy  and  practicable  access  to  institu- 
tions which  will  be  either  maintained  or  assisted  out  of  these 
funds.  I  am  bound  to  say  there  yet  remains  one  more  objec- 
tion to  the  plan  of  my  honourable  and  learned  friend.  If 
he  retains  these  endowments  in  the  wealthier  parishes  of  Ire- 
land, it  is  quite  plain  to  me  that  he  cannot  give  to  the  Irish 
Church  that  which  I  find  it  determined  to  assert  for  itself — 
namely,  an  absolute  legal  freedom — for  he  proposes  to  maintain 
benefices,  and  he  will  have  to  maintain  the  incidents  of 
benefices,  to  maintain  that  part  of  the  legal  Church  system 
which  concerns  the  enjoyment  of  property  under  straight, 
rigid,  and  inflexible  rules.  Now,  such  retention  of  rules  would, 
I  am  afraid,  greatly  interfere  with  that  power  of  elastic  adapta- 
tion of  arrangements  to  wants  and  necessities  all  over  Ireland 
to  which  members  of  the  Established  Church  in  Ireland  look 
with  sanguine  hope  as  a  principle  enabling  them  to  cope  with 
the  difficulties  of  the  position.  I  therefore,  Sir,  feel  bound 
to  say  that,  great  as  is  the  respect  which  we  have  for  the 
authority  of  my  honourable  and  learned  friend,  it  appears 
to  me  that  we  should  do  wrong  were  we  to  deviate  from 
the  plans  we  have  adopted  in  the  direction  which  he  indicates 
to  us. 

And  here  let  me  say  a  word  with  regard  to  the  application 
of  funds  to  lunatic  asylums  in  answer  to  what  fell  from  the 
noble  Lord  the  member  for  Middlesex  (Lord  George  Hamilton) 
a  word  which  I  say  with  great  satisfaction,  because  it  affords 
me  an  agreeable  opportunity  of  acknowledging  the  remark- 
able ability  that  distinguished  his  first  address  to  the  House. 
But  the  noble  Lord  has  not  examined  into  the  case  of  these 
institutions.  He  stated  that  the  money  of  the  Church  would 
be  given  to  sectarian  lunatic  asylums  of  which  he  gave  three 
or  four  examples.  (Lord  George  Hamilton  :  I  said  it  might 
be.)  I  think  the  noble  Lord,  naturally  perhaps  assuming 
that  we  could  not  have  any  other  but  the  worst  and  darkest 
intentions,  went  a  little  further  and  said  they  would  be  so 
applied.  But  those  three  instances  named  by  the  noble  Lord 
were  not  instances  of  lunatic  asylums  at  all,  but  were 
instances  of  hospitals  which  would  not  come  within  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Bill.  Now,  instead  of  replying  in  detail  on 
such  a  point,  I  would  simply  say  this — ^that  in  the  whole 
application  of  these  residuary  funds  there  is  not  involved  the 

13— (ai7i) 


194  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

adoption  of  a  single  principle  which  is  new  to  Parliament.  If 
we  are  told  that  reformatories  are  not  fit  to  receive  any  portion 
of  these  funds  because  reformatories  are  denominational,  my 
answer  is  that  these  reformatories  receive  from  year  to  year 
grants  of  the  public  money  voted  by  Parliament ;  and  if  they 
are  fit  to  receive  money  contributed  by  the  taxpayers  of  three 
countries,  they  are  fit  to  receive  money  proceeding  from  the 
Church  funds  of  Ireland.  With  regard  to  lunatic  asylums, 
those  asylums  are  exclusively  governed  by  persons  who  are 
appointed  by  the  Lord-Lieutenant  of  Ireland — that  is  to  say, 
by  officers  who  are  responsible  to  Parliament.  With  respect 
to  county  infirmaries,  the  noble  Lord  knows  very  well  that 
although  these  institutions  are  very  ill-governed  at  present, 
yet  they  are  under  government  of  a  legal  character,  which 
must  be  fixed  and  appointed  by  us,  and  which  must  be  under 
any  new  and  amended  system — if  our  policy  is  allowed  to  have 
its  way — of  a  perfectly  impartial  and  secular  description. 

Well,  Sir,  there  is  more  that  I  should  have  liked  to  say, 
were  it  not  that  the  hands  of  the  clock  warn  me  that  I  ought 
to  hasten  to  a  close  ;  and  I  will,  therefore,  proceed  to  what — 
to  use  a  phrase  that  I  am  afraid  has  given  some  offence,  although 
it  was  not  used  with  the  intention  of  giving  any — I  may  call 
the  "  winding  up  "  of  my  speech  ;  but  I  applied  the  phrase 
"  winding  up  "  to  these  money  arrangements  because  it  is 
one  which  I  thought  conveniently  expressed  what  I  meant. 
This  measure  has  been — and  I  do  not  much  complain  of  it — 
the  object  undoubtedly  of  very  hard  words — sacrilege,  spolia- 
tion, perfidy.  All  these  and  two  more  have  been  used  ;  to 
which  two  I  will  now  refer,  because  they  were  used  by  my  right 
honourable  friend  the  member  for  North  Devon  (Sir  Stafford 
Northcote)  at  a  Conservative  dinner,  unless  he  be  wronged  by 
the  reporters,  on  the  3rd  of  March,  when  he  delivered  a  speech 
on  this  subject,  which  appears  to  me  more  highly  seasoned 
than  the  one  he  addressed  to  the  House.  If  I  might  venture 
to  express  an  opinion  on  such  a  matter,  I  would  recommend 
that  when  honourable  gentlemen  have  strong  things  to  say 
about  public  measures  the  best  place  is  to  say  them  in  is  this 
House.  (Sir  Stafford  Northcote  :  I  shall  be  quite  pre- 
pared to  say  it  here  at  the  proper  time.)  I  should  say  the 
proper  time  was  in  the  course  of  this  debate.  I  want  to  refer 
to  his  remarks  because  I  am  satisfied  with  and  somewhat  proud 


GLADSTONE  195 

of  them.  My  right  honourable  friend  said  that  when  the  English 
people  understand  the  measure  they  wiU  feel  that  it  is  unparal- 
leled in  its  character,  and  that  it  combines  a  gigantic  scheme 
of  robbery  with  a  still  worse  system  of  bribery.  Those  words 
have  given  satisfaction  to  me  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first 
place,  because  my  right  honourable  friend  having  used  those 
words,  cannot  possibly  hereafter  use  any  others  that  are  worse, 
and  therefore  we  know  that  we  have  touched  the  bottom.  I 
have  another  source  of  satisfaction.  It  is  just  the  kind  of 
delineation  and  picture  which,  when  drawn  by  a  hostile  hand, 
shows  me  that  we  have  succeeded  in  the  framing  of  our  measure. 
When  my  right  honourable  friend  says  we  have  committed 
robbery,  what  he  means  is  that  we  have  been  faithful  to  the 
principles  of  disestablishment  and  general  disendowment  which 
we  announced  last  year,  and  which  we  professed  to  our  con- 
stituents ;  and  when  he  says  we  have  committed  bribery,  he 
means  that,  in  the  application  of  those  principles,  we  have 
studied  carefully  and  to  the  best  of  our  ability  to  ensure  that 
there  should  be  every  mitigation  and  every  softening  which 
they  could  receive  in  their  practical  application.  Therefore 
I  accept  the  involuntary  but  most  conclusive  testimony  given 
by  my  right  honourable  friend  that  the  spirit  in  which  we  have 
proceeded  is  one,  among  a  variety  of  evidences  afforded  me 
by  the  demeanour  of  the  House,  that  they  think  the  Govern- 
ment has  not  failed  in  embodying  in  this  important  measure 
the  main  considerations  which  it  was  their  duty  to  include 
in  it. 

I  have  nothing  else  to  say  which  is  essential  or  material. 
I  wish  to  release  this  House  ;  and  I  will  therefore  conclude 
by  thanking  the  House  for  the  patience  with  which  they  have 
Ustened  to  me  at  this  advanced  hour  of  the  night  or  of  the 
morning,  whatever  we  may  think  fit  to  call  it.  As  the  clock 
points  rapidly  towards  the  dawn,  so  are  rapidly  flowing  out 
the  years,  the  months,  the  days,  that  remain  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Irish  Established  Church.  An  honourable  member 
last  night  assured  us,  speaking,  I  have  no  doubt,  his  own  honest 
convictions,  that  we  were  but  at  the  beginning  of  this  question. 
I  believe  that  not  only  every  man  who  sits  on  this  side  of  the 
House,  but  every  man  who  sits  on  that,  carries  within  his 
breast  a  silent  monitor  which  tells  him  that  this  controversy 
is  fast  moving  to  a  close.     It  is  for  the  interest  of  all  of  us  that 


196  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

we  should  not  keep  this  estabhshment  of  reUgion  in  a  prolonged 
agony.  Nothing  can  come  of  that  prolongation  but  an 
increase  of  pain,  an  increase  of  exasperation,  and  a  diminution 
of  that  temper  which  now  happily  prevails — a  temper  which 
is  disposed  to  mitigate  the  adjustment  of  this  great  question 
in  its  details.  There  may  also  come  from  that  prolongation 
the  very  evil  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite 
made  it  a  charge  against  us  that  we  were  labouring  to  produce, 
but  which  we  think  likely  to  be  rather  the  probable  conse- 
quence of  his  line  of  argument — namely,  the  drawing  into 
this  Irish  controversy  the  English  question  which  we  conceive 
to  be  wholly  different.  We  think  so,  because,  although  in 
the  two  countries  there  may  be  and  there  are  Estabhshments 
of  religions,  we  never  can  admit  that  an  Estabhshment  which 
we  think,  in  the  main,  good  and  efficient  for  its  purposes,  is 
to  be  regarded  as  being  endangered  by  the  course  which  we 
may  adopt  in  reference  to  an  Establishment  which  we  look 
upon  as  being  inefficient  and  bad.  The  day,  therefore,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  rapidly  approaching  when  this  controversy 
will  come  to  an  end,  and  I  feel  that  I  am  not  wrong  in  appeahng 
to  that  silent  witness  to  the  justice  of  my  anticipations  which 
I  am  satisfied  exists  on  both  sides  of  the  House.  Not  now  are 
we  opening  this  great  question.  Opened,  perhaps,  it  was, 
when  the  Parliament  which  expired  last  year  pronounced  upon 
it  that  emphatic  judgment  which  can  never  be  recalled. 
Opened  it  was  further  when,  in  the  months  of  autumn,  the 
discussions  which  were  held  in  every  quarter  of  the  country 
turned  mainly  on  the  subject  of  the  Irish  Church.  Prosecuted 
another  stage  it  was,  when  the  completed  elections  discovered 
to  us  a  manifestation  of  the  national  verdict  more  emphatic 
than,  with  the  rarest  exceptions,  has  been  witnessed  during 
the  whole  of  our  Parliamentary  history.  The  good  cause  was 
further  advanced  towards  its  triumphant  issue  when  the  silent 
acknowledgment  of  the  late  Government  that  they  decUned 
to  contest  the  question  was  given  by  their  retirement  from 
office,  and  their  choosing  a  less  responsible  position  from  which 
to  carry  on  a  more  desultory  warfare  against  the  policy  which 
they  had  in  the  previous  Session  unsuccessfully  attempted  to 
resist.  Another  blow  will  soon  be  struck  in  the  same  good 
cause,  and  I  will  not  intercept  it  one  single  moment  more. 


THE  DUKE  OF  ARGYLL 

The  late  Duke  of  Argyll  was  one  of  the  few  born  orators  in  the 
history  of  English  poHtics.  Although  he  never  sat  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  he  by  no  means  confined  his  efforts  to  the 
House  of  Lords.  He  was  quite  at  home  on  a  public  platform, 
and  he  could  appeal  with  equal  success  to  audiences  of  very 
different  kinds.  Introduced  very  early  into  public  and  official 
life,  he  soon  acquired  a  familiarity  with  affairs  of  state  which 
gave  to  his  speeches  the  practical  character  they  might  other- 
wise have  lacked.  He  resembled  Bright  more  nearly  than  any 
other  English  speaker.  But  his  style  was  his  own.  He  had 
the  great  gift  of  putting  his  principles  naturally  into  stately 
and  dignified  language.  If  he  preferred  the  House  of  Lords 
even  to  a  popular  meeting,  it  was  partly  perhaps  from  habit 
and  association,  partly  because  he  knew  that  he  was  at  the 
same  time  addressing  a  much  larger  pubUc  outside.  This 
was  peculiarly  the  case  with  the  Eastern  Question.  There 
the  Duke  took  the  same  side  as  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  his  attacks 
upon  Lord  Beaconsfield's  pohcy  rested  upon  an  equally  broad 
foundation.  It  affords,  therefore,  a  very  good  opportunity 
for  testing  and  exhibiting  the  characteristic  features  of  his 
oratory.  He  was  not  an  ingenious  or  a  subtle  speaker.  He 
did  not  wind  himself  into  a  subject,  hke  Burke,  or  accumulate 
a  series  of  propositions  until  he  had  built  up  an  argumentative 
case  strong  enough  to  support  the  conclusion  he  wished  to 
draw.  His  method  was  rather  expository  and  didactic.  Yet 
he  was  never  prosaic  or  dull.  His  gift  of  language  was  so 
rich,  and  so  weU  employed,  that  those  who  disagreed  with  him 
the  most  did  not  enjoy  listening  to  him  the  least.  He  played 
upon  all  the  resources  of  our  EngHsh  tongue  with  such  con- 
summate dexterity  that  men  heard  him  with  the  same  kind 
of  pleasure  as  a  musical  performance  can  give. 

197 


198  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

The  Eastern  Question 

Address  in  Answer  to  the  Queen's  Speech  in  1877 

As  I  took  some  part  in  the  agitation  to  which  the  noble  Lord 
referred  at  the  commencement  of  the  evening,  I  trust  your 
Lordships  will  allow  me  to  say  a  few  words  in  reply.  The 
reference  was  made  in  a  speech  of  very  great  ability  ;  but 
sharing  as  I  do  fully  in  the  feelings  which  have  been  expressed 
by  my  noble  friend  behind  me  with  regard  to  the  accession 
to  this  House  of  the  noble  Earl  opposite  (the  Earl  of  Beacons- 
field),  I  certainly  shaU  not  comment  in  a  tone  of  anything  like 
asperity  on  what  has  recently  fallen  from  him — for  as  a  general 
rule  the  language  he  holds  towards  his  opponents  is  not  only 
fuU  of  humour,  but  full  of  good  humour.  I,  however,  regret 
the  more  on  that  account  that  he  should,  during  the  past 
autumn,  have  spoken  in  terms  of  such  extreme  harshness  of 
those  who  took  part  in  the  agitation  to  which  he  alluded.  I 
will  attribute  it  to  momentary  irritation.  I  do  not,  at  the  same 
time,  consider  this  a  fitting  opportunity  for  that  full  and  ample 
discussion  by  which  only  that  agitation  could  be  completely 
explained  and  defended.  I  shall,  therefore,  wait  until  the 
papers  are  laid  on  the  table  of  your  Lordships'  House,  and 
shall  then  take  the  opportunity  of  stating  fuUy  to  the  House 
the  grounds  on  which  I  deemed  myself  to  be  justified  in  taking 
part  in  that  agitation.  I  am  sure  no  member  of  this  House — 
no  Peer,  no  Englishman — would  wish  to  call  in  question  the 
right  of  public  speaking — it  is  one  of  the  dearest  rights  as  well 
of  Englishmen  as  of  Scotchmen  and  Irishmen.  But  this  I 
will  confess  frankly — that,  in  my  opinion,  public  meetings  in 
general  ought  not  to  interfere  with  the  foreign  policy  of  the 
country,  which  is  for  the  most  part  concerned  with  matters 
of  extreme  dehcacy  and  much  difficulty,  embracing  nuances  and 
shades  which  it  is  almost  impossible  to  make  plain  to  a  public 
assembly.  I,  therefore,  admit  that  there  ought  not  to  be  such 
interference  as  that  of  which  I  am  speaking,  except  in  extreme 
cases  ;  and  unless  I  make  out  such  a  case  when  the  subject 
comes  before  your  Lordships,  I  will  submit  to  any  censure 
which  your  Lordships  may  pronounce.  I  wish,  in  the  next 
place,  to  refer  very  briefly  to  the  speech  which  we  have  just 
heard  from  the  noble  Earl  the  Secretary  for  Foreign 
Affairs   (Lord  Derby).     I  am  free  to  say  that  that  speech 


ARGYLL  199 

has  disabused  us  on  this  side  of  the  House  of  an 
impression  which  was  created  by  the  language,  not 
officially  reported,  but  which  is  supposed  to  have  been 
held  by  the  noble  Marquess  who  was  the  special  envoy  of 
this  country  at  Constantinople  ;  and,  having  mentioned  him, 
I  hope  I  may  be  allowed  to  add  my  humble  tribute  of  respect 
and  admiration  for  the  acceptance  by  him  of  the  mission  which 
took  him  to  Turkey.  I  believe  no  purer  act  of  patriotism  or 
of  public  duty  has  ever  been  performed.  He  undertook  a 
task  from  which  he  had  nothing  to  gain,  while  he  submitted, 
in  going  to  Constantinople,  his  reputation  to  some  risk.  That 
reputation,  however,  has  certainly  not  been  sullied,  and  I 
know  no  case,  although  party  spirit  is  a  thing  of  which  I  have 
had  considerable  experience  during  my  public  Ufe,  in  which  all 
parties  so  eagerly  united  to  hail  an  appointment  as  in  that  of 
the  noble  Marquess,  and  to  lend  him  their  support. 
No  man,  I  may  add,  hailed  more  gladly  than  I  did  his  appoint- 
ment, or  felt  more  confident  that  he  would  uphold  the  honour 
and  interests  of  England.  My  Lords,  I  now  return  to  the 
speech  of  the  noble  Earl  the  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  who 
denies  that  there  has  been  any  change  in  the  policy  of  the 
Government  with  respect  to  this  Eastern  Question.  I  wish  to 
point  out  to  the  House  what  I  look  upon  as  an  entire  change 
of  policy.  Up  to  the  date  of  the  12th  of  August,  and  from  the 
close  of  last  session  of  ParUament,  the  public  in  this  country 
had  no  right  to  suppose,  and  no  reason,  that  Government  were 
shaken  in  the  policy  which  they  had  pursued  up  to  that  time — 
the  policy  of  absolute  non-intervention  in  the  internal  affairs 
of  Turkey — not  only  non-intervention  as  regards  ourselves, 
but  remonstrance  with,  and  resistance  to,  all  the  other  Powers 
of  Europe  for  mixing  themselves  up  in  those  affairs.  The 
noble  Earl,  after  the  famous  Berlin  Note,  in  writing  to  Sir 
Henry  Elhot,  distinctly  says  that  it  was  the  policy  of  the 
Government  to  avoid  and  prevent  all  interference  of  the  States 
of  Europe  in  the  internal  affairs  of  Turkey.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  about  that,  he  repeats  it  over  and  over  again  ;  and  up 
to  the  time  of  the  public  meetings  held  in  the  autumn,  this 
was  believed  to  be  the  fixed  policy  of  the  Government.  On  the 
11th  of  September,  however,  as  reported  in  The  Times  of  the 
12th,  a  deputation  of  Conservative  working  men  waited  on 
the  noble  Earl  and  addressed  to  him  a  remonstrance  with 


200  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

regard  to  the  affairs  of  Turkey.  I  will  read  to  the  House  the 
words  which  the  noble  Earl  used  in  reply,  as  reported  in  The 
Times.     He  said — 

So  far  as  those  unfortunate  Bulgarians  who  have  suffered  so  much 
are  concerned,  they  have  a  right,  no  doubt,  to  such  reparation  as  it  is 
now  possible  to  make,  and  they  have  a  right  also,  no  doubt,  to  the 
signal,  conspicuous,  and  exemplary  punishment  of  those  who  have 
been  the  offenders.  I  think  they  have  also  a  right  that  in  some  manner 
or  another  we  shall  take  such  steps  as  may  secure  them  from  a  recurrence 
of  similar  abuses  for  the  future. 

My  Lords,  I  say  that  that  was  an  absolute  change  of  policy 
— as  sudden  and  complete  as  if  there  had  been  a  change  of 
Government.  The  noble  Earl  followed  up  what  he  said  on 
that  occasion  by  a  speech  addressed  to  another  deputation 
headed  by  the  Lord  Mayor  of  London.  That  was  succeeded 
by  the  well-known  despatch  of  the  21st  of  September,  in  which 
the  noble  Earl  made  the  gravest  demands  on  the  Turkish 
Government  for  the  punishment  of  the  offenders  and  the 
better  security  and  good  government  of  the  Christian  subjects 
of  the  Porte.  These  were  obligations  which  the  Government 
considered  they  had  come  under  in  consequence  of  the  Bul- 
garian atrocities.  My  noble  friend  (Earl  Granville)  was,  there- 
fore, justified  in  saying  that  there  was  a  sudden  and  complete 
change  of  policy,  but  a  change  involving  no  disgrace  or  dis- 
credit whatever  to  the  Government ;  and  if  that  language 
had  been  held  throughout,  no  censure  could  be  passed  upon 
the  Government  on  that  account.  With  regard  to  the  speech 
of  the  noble  Earl,  the  Secretary  of  State,  to-night,  I  regret  that 
I  interpret  it  in  another  way — as  a  step  backwards,  and  a  very 
distinct  step  backwards,  from  these  public  engagements.  In 
the  first  place  I  deplored  to  hear  from  the  noble  Earl  a  reiter- 
ated and  distinct  statement  of  his  regret  that  the  Turkish 
Government  had  not  succeeded  in  repressing  the  insurrection 
in  Herzegovina  and  Bosnia.  I  admit  that  it  is  legitimate 
to  regret  that  a  friendly  Government  has  not  been  able  to 
suppress  an  insurrection,  but  on  one  ground — that  you  can 
lay  your  hand  on  your  heart  and  say  that  it  is  a  Government 
which  you  ought  to  support,  and  which  treats  its  subjects  with 
such  tolerable  fairness  that  you  can  wish  it  to  secure  its  power 
over  them.  Is  this  the  case  ?  Can  you  lay  your  hand  on  your 
heart  and  say  that  this  is  a  Government  you  ought  to  S5nn- 
pathise  with,  and  not  with  the  insurrection  ?     I  say  distinctly 


ARGYLL  201 

in  this  "  high  place  " — in  this  "  house  top  "  of  Europe,  that 
every  insurrection  against  that  Government  is  a  legitimate 
insurrection.  Human  beings  imder  that  Government  owe  it 
no  allegiance.  I  heard  that  declaration  of  the  noble  Earl  with 
infinite  regret,  and  it  is  not  one  that  will  satisfy  the  feelings 
and  consciences  of  the  people  of  this  country.  I  heard  also 
with  infinite  regret  the  declaration  of  the  noble  Earl  that  he 
was  determined  in  no  case  to  use  force  to  compel  the  Turks 
to  do  justice  to  their  Christian  subjects.  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  noble  Earl  has  already  made  that  announcement  to  Europe, 
but  if  so,  you  might  as  well  not  have  sent  an  envoy  to  Con- 
stantinople. The  noble  Lord  who  moved  the  Address  denounced 
what  you  have  called  the  "  bag  and  baggage  "  policy  ;  but  I 
think  that  this  is  the  very  policy  pursued  towards  the  noble 
Marquess  himself.  The  noble  Lord  objected  to  this  idea, 
because,  he  said,  if  the  Turks  were  sent  out  of  Europe  they 
would  go  somewhere  else  where  they  would  do  equal  mischief. 
I  am  glad  that  if  the  noble  Marquess  was  sent  from  Constanti- 
nople he  has  come  back  to  us,  and  I  hope  his  influence  in  the 
Government  will  be  in  favour  of  the  oppressed  subjects  of  the 
Porte — as  it  is  reported  and  believed  to  have  been  at  the 
Conference.  The  noble  Earl,  the  Secretary  of  State,  has  told  us 
that  the  object  of  the  Conference  was  twofold — to  secure  power 
to  Europe  and  good  government  to  the  subjects  of  Turkey. 
Have  you  secured  good  government,  or  even  a  tolerable  pros- 
pect of  it  ?  That  is  what  the  people  of  England  desire  to  know. 
You  proposed  certain  terms  for  the  good  government  of  Turkey, 
and  these  terms  have  been  refused.  Have  you  got  any  others  ? 
Have  you  secured  peace  ?  The  noble  Earl  declared  that 
peace  depends  upon  one  man,  and  yet  two  sentences  after- 
wards he  declared  he  did  not  think  that  peace  depended  on 
the  Emperor  of  Russia.  Which  is  true  ?  The  declaration 
shows  the  fundamental  error  in  the  policy  of  the  noble  Earl. 
He  does  not  appreciate — he  has  never  appreciated — the  forces 
at  work  in  this  question.  Do  you  think  this  great  Eastern 
Question,  which  has  been  brooding  over  Europe,  and  which 
has  darkly  overshadowed  it  for  forty  or  fifty  years — do  you 
think  that  this  question  which  has  been  forced  upon  you, 
reluctant  as  you  have  been  to  see  its  gravity — do  you  mean  to 
tell  the  House  of  Lords  that  this  question  depends  upon  the 
action  of  one  man,  and  that  man  the  Emperor  of  Russia  ? 


202  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

And  then  you  profess  the  next  moment  to  believe  that  the 
Emperor  of  Russia  is  perfectly  sincere.  I  say  you  will  have  no 
peace  in  Europe  until  the  well-being  of  the  Christian  subjects 
of  the  Porte  has  been  secured  by  the  united  action  of  the 
European  Powers.  And  if  you  have  sent  one  of  your  most 
distinguished  members  to  Constantinople,  declaring  before- 
hand your  guns  to  be  loaded  with  blank  cartridge,  I  say  you 
might  just  as  well  have  sat  still,  twiddling  your  thumbs,  as 
you  did  for  three  months  before.  The  noble  Earl  says  that  the 
Conference  has  not  failed,  and  that  we  have  obtained  by  it 
securities  for  the  better  treatment  of  the  Christian  subjects 
of  the  Porte.  But  the  securities  have  been  cut  down  and 
brought  to  such  a  minimum  that  no  human  being  will  think 
them  worth  fighting  for.  That  may  be  one  way  of  securing 
peace ;  but  will  the  Christian  population  of  Turkey  be 
restrained  from  fighting  for  something  better  than  you  have 
given  them — does  he  think  that  the  demands  that  will  be  made 
will  never  exceed  this  irreducible  minimum  ?  Has  the  noble 
Earl  never  heard  of  the  Sibylline  leaves  ?  Do  you  think  that 
the  great  forces  of  reUgion  and  the  sympathies  of  people  with 
people,  which  are  at  the  root  of  this  great  Eastern  Question, 
will  be  satisfied  with  this  irreducible  minimum  to  which  the 
claims  of  the  Christians  have  been  cut  down,  and  to  which 
the  noble  Marquess  seems  to  have  consented  ?  If  the  noble 
Earl  does  not  believe  that,  the  Conference  has  failed  both  in 
securing  peace  and  good  government  for  Turkey.  The  Secre- 
tary of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  says  that  our  plain  course  is 
to  do  nothing — to  let  things  drift.  The  noble  Lord  who  moved 
the  Address  said  it  was  very  wrong  to  speak  to  the  man  at  the 
helm.  There  is  no  man  at  the  helm.  You  tell  us  yourselves 
that  you  wiU  do  nothing — and  that  you  will  let  the  vessel 
drift  on.  But  you  know  that  there  are  other  powers  in  Europe 
besides  the  noble  Earl,  the  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs, 
and  much  as  he  may  despise  sentimentality  in  politics — for- 
getting that  sentiment  rules  the  world,  forgetting  that  all 
moral  feeling  is  founded  on  sentiment — much  as  he  may 
despise  sentimentality  in  politics,  I  am  greatly  mistaken  if  senti- 
mentality will  not  be  too  strong  for  him  if  someone  does  not 
seize  the  helm  which  the  noble  Earl  says  the  Government  has 
abandoned.  I  believe  that  Europe  will  drift  into  a  bloody 
and  dreadful  war.     I  am  not  one  of  those  who  deprecate  war 


ARGYLL  203 

under  all  circumstances,  or  who  think  that  peace  under  all 
circumstances  is  the  object  that  ought  to  be  secured  by  a 
Christian  people.  There  are  causes  that  are  worth  fighting 
for.  There  are  people  who  desire  "  peace  at  any  price,"  but 
it  is  a  price  to  be  paid  by  others  and  not  by  themselves.  "  Any- 
thing for  a  quiet  life  "  ;  but  the  quietness  of  life  is  to  be  for 
themselves  and  not  for  others.  That  is  a  feeling  of  utter  selfish- 
ness, and,  my  Lords,  my  belief  is  that  this  policy  will  end  in  war. 
Let  Her  Majesty's  Government  take  the  European  concert  in 
time,  so  that  the  European  Powers  may  act  together.  You  have 
been  ever  reluctant  to  take  part  in  this  united  action  ;  you 
refused  to  join  with  Austria  in  the  Andrassy  Note  ;  you  were 
the  drag  upon  Europe,  you  kept  it  from  acting  together  for 
six  or  eight  months.  It  may  be  too  late  now  ;  but  if  you  have 
the  chance  of  preserving  peace,  or  of  limiting  war  to  one  locality 
or  for  any  definite  purpose,  for  Heaven's  sake  re-establish 
your  European  concord,  and  do  not  be  so  foolish  or  so  weak 
as  to  say,  "  We  shall  never  fight ;  we  shall  never  force  our  will 
on  the  Turks."  This  course  is  one  of  utter  fatuity  ;  and  my 
sincere  belief  is  that,  sooner  or  later,  such  a  policy  will  end  in 
a  disastrous  war. 


JAMES   RUSSELL  LOWELL 

James  Russell  Lowell  was  not  only  a  great  political  satirist 
and  a  literary  essayist,  remarkable  for  critical  insight.  He 
had  also  the  gift  of  easy,  graceful,  and  suggestive  speech. 
He  was  a  perfect  type  of  the  cultivated  democrat,  familiar 
with  history,  and  well  aware  that  public  opinion  had  often  been 
grievously  mistaken,  but  at  the  same  time  convinced,  like 
Burke,  that  it  was  a  safer  guide  than  the  judgment  of  any 
individual,  or  any  class.  He  was  never  engaged  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  political  conflict.  In  the  nomenclature  of  American 
parties  he  was  a  Republican,  though  an  independent  one.  In 
England  he  would  have  been  a  moderate,  consistent  Liberal. 
At  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  which  disturbed  the  American 
Union  he  was  an  enthusiastic  Northerner,  and,  though  not 
prone  to  hero-worship,  he  idolised  Lincoln,  But  there  were 
some  American  institutions,  such  as  the  caucus  and  the  spoils- 
system,  from  which  he  was  naturally  averse,  and  he  was  a 
free  trader  in  the  old  English  sense,  believing  in  a  tariff  for 
revenue  only.  He  was  proud  of  being  a  pure  Englishman  by 
descent,  and  no  American  has  ever  been  more  attached  to  this 
country.  As  Minister  of  the  United  States  in  London,  he 
was  thoroughly  and  completely  at  home,  so  much  so  that  some 
of  his  fellow-citizens  most  unjustly  suspected  him  of  paying 
too  much  deference  to  the  susceptibilities  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment. He  was  really  a  most  patriotic  American.  But  his 
sympathies  were  apt  to  be  cosmopolitan.  His  occasional 
verses,  some  of  which  have  real  fire  as  well  as  finish,  show 
how  ardently  he  felt  for  the  cause  of  Italian  independence, 
and  in  the  freedom  of  private  conversation  he  did  not 
disguise  his  leanings  towards  Irish  autonomy.  Always  able 
to  appreciate  the  arguments  on  both  sides  of  any  question, 
he  held  tenaciously  to  the  principles  of  hberty  and  progress, 

204 


LOWELL  205 

on  which  he  beUeved  that  civilisation  rests.  The  wide  range 
of  his  reading,  and  the  great  strength  of  his  memory,  furnished 
him  as  a  speaker  with  abundant  material  for  the  exercise  of  his 
varied  and  allusive  style. 


Democracy 

Inaugural  Address  on  assuming  the  Presidency  of  the  Birmingham 
and  Midland  Institute,  Birmingham,  England,  October  6,  1884 

He  must  be  a  born  leader  or  misleader  of  men,  or  must  have 
been  sent  into  the  world  unfurnished  with  that  modulating 
and  restraining  balance-wheel  which  we  call  a  sense  of  humour, 
who,  in  old  age,  has  as  strong  a  confidence  in  his  opinions  and  in 
the  necessity  of  bringing  the  universe  into  conformity  with  them 
as  he  had  in  youth.  In  a  world  the  very  condition  of  whose 
being  is  that  it  should  be  in  perpetual  flux,  where  all  seems 
mirage,  and  the  one  abiding  thing  is  the  effort  to  distinguish 
realities  from  appearances,  the  elderly  man  must  be  indeed 
of  a  singularly  tough  and  valid  fibre  who  is  certain  that  he  has 
any  clarified  residuum  of  experience,  any  assured  verdict  of 
reflection,  that  deserves  to  be  called  an  opinion,  or  who,  even 
if  he  had,  feels  that  he  is  justified  in  holding  mankind  by  the 
button  while  he  is  expounding  it.  And  in  a  world  of  daily — 
nay,  almost  hourly — journahsm,  where  every  clever  man, 
every  man  who  thinks  himself  clever,  or  whom  anybody  else 
thinks  clever,  is  called  upon  to  deliver  his  judgment  point- 
blank  and  at  the  word  of  command  on  every  conceivable  subject 
of  human  thought,  or,  on  what  sometimes  seems  to  him  very 
much  the  same  thing,  on  every  inconceivable  display  of  human 
want  of  thought,  there  is  such  a  spendthrift  waste  of  all  those 
commonplaces  which  furnish  the  permitted  staple  of  public 
discourse  that  there  is  little  chance  of  beguiling  a  new  tune 
out  of  the  one-stringed  instrument  on  which  we  have  been 
thrumming  so  long.  In  this  desperate  neccessity  one  is  often 
tempted  to  think  that,  if  all  the  words  of  the  dictionary  were 
tumbled  down  in  a  heap  and  then  all  those  fortuitous  juxta- 
positions and  combinations  that  made  tolerable  sense  were 
picked  out  and  pieced  together,  we  might  find  among  them 
some   poignant   suggestions   towards   novelty  of   thought  or 


206  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

expression.  But,  alas  !  it  is  only  the  great  poets  who  seem 
to  have  this  unsolicited  profusion  of  unexpected  and  incal- 
culable phrase,  this  infinite  variety  of  topic.  For  everybody 
else  everything  has  been  said  before,  and  said  over  again  after. 
He  who  has  read  his  Aristotle  will  be  apt  to  think  that  obser- 
vation has  on  most  points  of  general  applicability  said  its  last 
word,  and  he  who  has  mounted  the  tower  of  Plato  to  look 
abroad  from  it  will  never  hope  to  climb  another  with  so  lofty 
a  vantage  of  speculation.  Where  it  is  so  simple  if  not  so  easy 
a  thing  to  hold  one's  peace,  why  add  to  the  general  confusion 
of  tongues  ?  There  is  something  disheartening,  too,  in  being 
expected  to  fill  up  not  less  than  a  certain  measure  of  time, 
as  if  the  mind  were  an  hour-glass,  that  need  only  be  shaken 
and  set  on  one  end  or  the  other,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  run  its 
allotted  sixty  minutes  with  decorous  exactitude.  I  recollect 
being  once  told  by  the  late  eminent  naturalist,  Agassiz,  that 
when  he  was  to  deliver  his  first  lecture  as  professor  (at  Zurich, 
I  believe)  he  had  grave  doubts  of  his  ability  to  occupy  the 
prescribed  three-quarters  of  an  hour.  He  was  speaking 
without  notes,  and  glancing  anxiously  from  time  to  time  at 
the  watch  that  lay  before  him  on  the  desk.  "  When  I  had 
spoken  a  half  hour,"  he  said,  "  I  had  told  them  everything 
I  knew  in  the  world,  everything  !  Then  I  began  to  repeat 
myself,"  he  added,  roguishly,  "  and  I  have  done  nothing 
else  ever  since."  Beneath  the  humorous  exaggeration  of  the 
story  I  seemed  to  see  the  face  of  a  very  serious  and  improving 
moral.  And  yet  if  one  were  to  say  only  what  he  had  to  say 
and  then  stopped,  his  audience  would  feel  defrauded  of  their 
honest  measure.  Let  us  take  courage  by  the  example  of  the 
French,  whose  exportation  of  Bordeaux  wines  increases  as 
the  area  of  their  land  in  vineyards  is  diminished. 

To  me,  somewhat  hopelessly  revolving  these  things,  the 
undelayable  year  has  roUed  round,  and  I  find  myself  called 
upon  to  say  something  in  this  place,  where  so  many  wiser 
men  have  spoken  before  me.  Precluded,  in  my  quaUty  of 
national  guest,  by  motives  of  taste  and  discretion,  from  dealing 
with  any  question  of  immediate  and  domestic  concern,  it  seemed 
to  me  wisest,  or  at  any  rate  most  prudent,  to  choose  a  topic 
of  comparatively  abstract  interest,  and  to  ask  your  indulgence 
for  a  few  somewhat  generahsed  remarks  on  a  matter  concerning 
which  I  had  some  experimental  knowledge,  derived  from  the 


LOWELL  207 

use  of  such  eyes  and  ears  as  Nature  had  been  pleased  to  endow 
me  withal,  and  such  report  as  I  had  been  able  to  win  from  them. 
The  subject  which  most  readily  suggested  itself  was  the  spirit 
and  the  working  of  those  conceptions  of  life  and  polity  which 
are  lumped  together,  whether  for  reproach  or  commendation, 
under  the  name  of  Democracy.     By  temperament  and  educa- 
tion of  a  conservative  turn,  I  saw  the  last  years  of  that  quaint 
Arcadia  which  French  travellers  saw  with  dehghted  amazement 
a  century  ago,  and  have  watched  the  change  (to  me  a  sad 
one)   from  an   agricultural  to  a  proletary  population.     The 
testimony  of  Balaam  should  carry  some  conviction.     I  have 
grown  to  manhood  and  am  now  growing  old  with  the  growth 
of  this  system  of  government  in  my  native  land,  have  watched 
its  advances,   or  what  some  would  call  its  encroachments, 
gradual  and  irresistible  as  those  of  a  glacier,  have  been  an 
ear-witness  to  the  forebodings  of  wise  and  good  and  timid 
men,  and  have  lived  to  see  those  forebodings  beUed  by  the 
course  of  events,  which  is  apt  to  show  itself  humorously  care- 
less  of  the   reputation   of  prophets.     I   recollect   hearing   a 
sagacious  old  gentleman  say  in  1840  that  the  doing  away  with 
the  property  qualification  for  suffrage  twenty  years  before 
had  been  the  ruin  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  ;  that  it  had 
put  public  credit  and  private  estate  alike  at  the  mercy  of 
demagogues.     I  lived  to  see  that  Commonwealth  twenty  odd 
years  later  paying  the  interest  on  her  bonds  in  gold,  though  it 
cost  her  sometimes  nearly  three  for  one  to  keep  her  faith,  and 
that  while  suffering  an  unparalleled  drain  of  men  and  treasure 
in  helping  to  sustain  the  unity  and  self-respect  of  the  nation. 

If  universal  suffrage  has  worked  ill  in  our  larger  cities,  as 
it  certainly  has,  this  has  been  mainly  because  the  hands  that 
wielded  it  were  untrained  to  its  use.  There  the  election  of  a 
majority  of  the  trustees  of  the  pubhc  money  is  controlled  by 
the  most  ignorant  and  vicious  of  a  population  which  has  come 
to  us  from  abroad,  wholly  impractised  in  self-government  and 
incapable  of  assimilation  by  American  habits  and  methods. 
But  the  finances  of  our  towns,  where  the  native  tradition  is 
still  dominant  and  whose  affairs  are  discussed  and  settled  in  a 
public  assembly  of  the  people,  have  been  in  general  honestly 
and  prudently  administered.  Even  in  manufacturing  towns, 
where  a  majority  of  the  voters  live  by  their  daily  wages,  it  is 
not  so  often  the  recklessness  as  the  moderation  of  pubhc 


208  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

expenditure  that  surprises  an  old-fashioned  observer.  "  The 
beggar  is  in  the  saddle  at  last,"  cries  Proverbial  Wisdom. 
"  Why,  in  the  name  of  all  former  experience,  doesn't  he  ride 
to  the  Devil  ?  "  Because  in  the  very  act  of  mounting  he 
ceased  to  be  a  beggar  and  became  part  owner  of  the  piece  of 
property  he  bestrides.  The  last  thing  we  need  be  anxious 
about  is  property.  It  always  has  friends  or  the  means  of 
making  them.  If  riches  have  wings  to  fly  away  from  their 
owner,  they  have  wings  also  to  escape  danger. 

I  hear  America  sometimes  playfully  accused  of  sending 
you  all  your  storms,  and  am  in  the  habit  of  parrying  the 
charge  by  alleging  that  we  are  enabled  to  do  this  because, 
in  virtue  of  our  protective  system,  we  can  afford  to  make 
better  bad  weather  than  anybody  else.  And  what  wiser  use 
could  we  make  of  it  than  to  export  it  in  return  for  the  paupers 
which  some  European  countries  are  good  enough  to  send  over 
to  us  who  have  not  attained  to  the  same  skill  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  them  ?  But  bad  weather  is  not  the  worst  thing  that 
is  laid  at  our  door.  A  French  gentleman,  not  long  ago,  for- 
getting Burke's  monition  of  how  unwise  it  is  to  draw  an 
indictment  against  a  whole  people,  has  charged  us  with  the 
responsibility  of  whatever  he  finds  disagreeable  in  the  morals 
or  manners  of  his  countrymen.  If  M.  Zola  or  some  other 
competent  witness  would  only  go  into  the  box  and  tell  us  what 
those  morals  and  manners  were  before  our  example  corrupted 
them  !  But  I  confess  that  I  find  httle  to  interest  and  less  to 
edify  me  in  these  international  bandyings  of  "  You're 
another." 

I  shall  address  myself  to  a  single  point  only  in  the  long  list 
of  offences  of  which  we  are  more  or  less  gravely  accused,  because 
that  really  includes  all  the  rest.  It  is  that  we  are  infecting 
the  Old  World  with  what  seems  to  be  thought  the  entirely 
new  disease  of  Democracy.  It  is  generally  people  who  are  in 
what  are  called  easy  circumstances  who  can  afford  the  leisure 
to  treat  themselves  to  a  handsome  complaint,  and  these 
experience  an  immediate  alleviation  when  once  they  have 
found  a  sonorous  Greek  name  to  abuse  it  by.  There  is  some- 
thing consolatory  also,  something  flattering  to  their  sense  of 
personal  dignity,  and  to  that  conceit  of  singularity  which  is 
the  natural  recoil  from  our  uneasy  consciousness  of  being 
commonplace,  in  thinking  ourselves  victims  of  a  malady  by 


LOWELL  209 

which  no  one  had  ever  suffered  before.  Accordingly  they 
find  it  simpler  to  class  under  one  comprehensive  heading  what- 
ever they  find  offensive  to  their  nerves,  their  tastes,  their 
interests,  or  what  they  suppose  to  be  their  opinions,  and 
christen  it  Democracy,  much  as  physicians  label  every  obscure 
disease  gout,  or  as  cross-grained  fellows  lay  their  ill-temper 
to  the  weather.  But  is  it  really  a  new  ailment,  and,  if  it  be, 
is  America  answerable  for  it  ?  Even  if  she  were,  would  it 
account  for  the  phylloxera,  and  hoof-and-mouth  disease,  and 
bad  harvests,  and  bad  Enghsh,  and  the  German  bands,  and 
the  Boers,  and  all  the  other  discomforts  with  which  these 
later  days  have  vexed  the  souls  of  them  that  go  in  chariots  ? 
Yet  I  have  seen  the  evil  example  of  Democracy  in  America 
cited  as  the  source  and  origin  of  things  quite  as  heterogeneous 
and  quite  as  little  connected  with  it  by  any  sequence  of  cause 
and  effect.  Surely  this  ferment  is  nothing  new.  It  has  been 
at  work  for  centuries,  and  we  are  more  conscious  of  it  only 
because  in  this  age  of  publicity,  where  the  newspapers  offer 
a  rostrum  to  whoever  has  a  grievance,  or  fancies  that  he  has, 
the  bubbles  and  scum  thrown  up  by  it  are  more  noticeable  on 
the  surface  than  in  those  dumb  ages  when  there  was  a  cover 
of  silence  and  suppression  on  the  cauldron.  Bernardo  Nava- 
gero,  speaking  of  the  Provinces  of  Lower  Austria  in  1546, 
tells  us  that  "  in  them  there  are  five  sorts  of  persons.  Clergy, 
Barons,  Nobles,  Burghers,  and  Peasants.  Of  these  last  no 
account  is  made,  because  they  have  no  voice  in  the  Diet."  ^ 

Nor  was  it  among  the  people  that  subversive  or  mistaken 
doctrines  had  their  rise.  A  Father  of  the  Church  said  that 
property  was  theft  many  centuries  before  Proudhon  was  born. 
Bourdaloue  reafiirmed  it.  Montesquieu  was  the  inventor 
of  national  workshops,  and  of  the  theory  that  the  State  owed 
every  man  a  living.  Nay,  was  not  the  Church  herself  the  first 
organised  Democracy  ?  A  few  centuries  ago  the  chief  end  of 
man  was  to  keep  his  soul  alive,  and  then  the  little  kernel  of 

*  Below  the  Peasants,  it  should  be  remembered,  was  still  another 
even  more  helpless  class,  the  servile  farm-labourers.  The  same  witness 
informs  us  that  of  the  extraordinary  imposts  the  Peasants  paid  nearly 
twice  as  much  in  proportion  to  their  estimated  property  as  the  Barons, 
Nobles,  and  Burghers  together.  Moreover,  the  upper  classes  were 
assessed  at  their  own  valuation,  while  they  arbitrarily  fixed  that  of 
the  Peasants,  who  had  no  voice  [Relazioni  degli  Ambasciatori  Veneti, 
Serie  I.,  tomo  i.,  pp.  378,  379,  389). 

14— (2171) 


210  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

leaven  that  sets  the  gases  at  work  was  religious,  and  produced 
the  Reformation.  Even  in  that,  far-sighted  persons  hke  the 
Emperor  Charles  V  saw  the  germ  of  pohtical  and  social  revolu- 
tion. Now  that  the  chief  end  of  man  seems  to  have  become 
the  keeping  of  the  body  ahve,  and  as  comfortably  alive  as 
possible,  the  leaven  also  has  become  wholly  pohtical  and  social. 
But  there  had  also  been  social  upheavals  before  the  Reforma- 
tion and  contemporaneously  with  it,  especially  among  men  of 
Teutonic  race.  The  Reformation  gave  outlet  and  direction 
to  an  unrest  already  existing.  Formerly  the  immense  majority 
of  men — our  brothers — ^knew  only  their  sufferings,  their  wants, 
and  their  desires.  They  are  beginning  now  to  know  their 
opportunity  and  their  power.  AH  persons  who  see  deeper 
than  their  plates  are  rather  inclined  to  thank  God  for  it  than 
to  bewail  it,  for  the  sores  of  Lazarus  have  a  poison  in  them 
against  which  Dives  has  no  antidote. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  spectacle  of  a  great  and 
prosperous  Democracy  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  must 
react  powerfully  on  the  aspirations  and  pohtical  theories  of 
men  in  the  Old  World  who  do  not  find  things  to  their  mind ; 
but,  whether  for  good  or  evil,  it  should  not  be  overlooked 
that  the  acorn  from  which  it  sprang  was  ripened  on  the  British 
oak.  Every  successive  swarm  that  has  gone  out  from  this 
officina  gentium  has,  when  left  to  its  own  instincts — may  I  not 
call  them  hereditary  instincts  ? — assumed  a  more  or  less 
thoroughly  democratic  form.  This  would  seem  to  show, 
what  I  beheve  to  be  the  fact,  that  the  British  Constitution, 
under  whatever  disguises  of  prudence  or  decorum,  is  essentially 
democratic.  England,  indeed,  may  be  called  a  monarchy  with 
democratic  tendencies,  the  United  States  a  democracy  with 
conservative  instincts.  People  are  continually  saying  that 
America  is  in  the  air,  and  I  am  glad  to  think  it  is,  since  this 
means  only  that  a  clearer  conception  of  human  claims  and 
human  duties  is  beginning  to  be  prevalent.  The  discontent 
with  the  existing  order  of  things,  however,  pervaded  the 
atmosphere  wherever  the  conditions  were  favourable,  long 
before  Columbus,  seeking  the  back  door  of  Asia,  found  himself 
knocking  at  the  front  door  of  America.  I  say  wherever  the 
conditions  were  favourable,  for  it  is  certain  that  the  germs 
of  disease  do  not  stick  or  find  a  prosperous  field  for  their 
development  and  noxious  activity  unless  where  the  simplest 


LOWELL  211 

sanitary  precautions  have  been  neglected.  "  For  this  effect  defec- 
tive comes  by  cause,"  as  Polonius  said  long  ago.  It  is  only  by 
instigation  of  the  wrongs  of  men  that  what  are  called  the 
Rights  of  Man  become  turbulent  and  dangerous.  It  is  then 
only  that  they  syllogize  unwelcome  truths.  It  is  not  the 
insurrections  of  ignorance  that  are  dangerous,  but  the  revolts 
of  intelligence — 

The  wicked  and  the  weak  rebel  in  vain, 
Slaves  by  their  own  compulsion. 

Had  the  governing  classes  in  France  during  the  last  century 
paid  as  much  heed  to  their  proper  business  as  to  their  pleasures 
or  manners,  the  guillotine  need  never  have  severed  that  spinal 
marrow  of  orderly  and  secular  tradition  through  which  in  a 
normally  constituted  state  the  brain  sympathises  with  the 
extremities  and  sends  wiU  and  impulsion  thither.  It  is  only 
when  the  reasonable  and  practicable  are  denied  that  men 
demand  the  unreasonable  and  impracticable  ;  only  when  the 
possible  is  made  difi&cult  that  they  fancy  the  impossible  to  be 
easy.  Fairy  tales  are  made  out  of  the  dreams  of  the  poor. 
No ;  the  sentiment  which  lies  at  the  root  of  democracy  is  nothing 
new.  I  am  speaking  always  of  a  sentiment,  a  spirit,  and  not 
of  a  form  of  government ;  for  this  was  but  the  outgrowth  of 
the  other  and  not  its  cause.  This  sentiment  is  merely  an 
expression  of  the  natural  wish  of  people  to  have  a  hand,  if 
need  be  a  controlling  hand,  in  the  management  of  their  own 
affairs.  What  is  new  is  that  they  are  more  and  more  gaining 
that  control,  and  learning  more  and  more  how  to  be  worthy  of 
it.  What  we  used  to  call  the  tendency  or  drift — what  we  are 
being  taught  to  call  more  wisely  the  evolution  of  things — has 
for  some  time  been  setting  steadily  in  this  direction.  There 
is  no  good  in  arguing  with  the  inevitable.  The  only  argument 
available  with  an  east  wind  is  to  put  on  your  overcoat.  And 
in  this  case,  also,  the  prudent  will  prepare  themselves  to 
encounter  what  they  cannot  prevent.  Some  people  advise  us 
to  put  on  the  brakes,  as  if  the  movement  of  which  we  are  con- 
scious were  that  of  a  railway  train  running  down  an  incline. 
But  a  metaphor  is  no  argument,  though  it  be  sometimes  the 
gunpowder  to  drive  one  home  and  imbed  it  in  the  memory. 
Our  disquiet  comes  of  what  nurses  and  other  experienced 
persons  call  growing-pains,  and  need  not  seriously  alarm  us. 
They  are  what  every  generation  before  us — certainly  every 


212  ^  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

generation  since  the  invention  of  printing — has  gone  through 
with  more  or  less  good  fortune.  To  the  door  of  every  genera- 
tion there  comes  a  knocking,  and  unless  the  household,  like 
the  Thane  of  Cawdor  and  his  wife,  have  been  doing  some  deed 
without  a  name,  they  need  not  shudder.  It  turns  out  at 
worst  to  be  a  poor  relation  who  wishes  to  come  in  out  of  the 
cold.  The  porter  always  grumbles  and  is  slow  to  open. 
"  Who's  there,  in  the  name  of  Beelzebub  ?  "  he  mutters. 
Not  a  change  for  the  better  in  our  human  housekeeping  has 
ever  taken  place  that  wise  and  good  men  have  not  opposed 
it — have  not  prophesied  with  the  alderman  that  the  world 
would  wake  up  to  find  its  throat  cut  in  consequence  of  it.  The 
world,  on  the  contrary,  wakes  up,  rubs  its  eyes,  yawns,  stretches 
itself,  and  goes  about  its  business  as  if  nothing  had  happened. 
Suppression  of  the  slave  trade,  abolition  of  slavery,  trade 
unions — at  all  of  these  excellent  people  shook  their  heads 
despondingly,  and  murmured  "  Ichabod."  But  the  trade 
unions  are  now  debating  instead  of  conspiring,  and  we  all 
read  their  discussions  with  comfort  and  hope,  sure  that  they 
are  learning  the  business  of  citizenship  and  the  difficulties  of 
practical  legislation. 

One  of  the  most  curious  of  these  frenzies  of  exclusion  was 
that  against  the  emancipation  of  the  Jews.  All  share  in  the 
government  of  the  world  was  denied  for  centuries  to  perhaps 
the  ablest,  certainly  the  most  tenacious,  race  that  had  ever 
lived  in  it — the  race  to  whom  we  owed  our  religion  and  the 
purest  spiritual  stimulus  and  consolation  to  be  found  in  all 
literature — a  race  in  which  ability  seems  as  natural  and  hered- 
itary as  the  curve  of  their  noses,  and  whose  blood,  furtively 
mingling  with  the  bluest  bloods  in  Europe,  has  quickened 
them  with  its  own  indomitable  impulsion.  We  drove  them 
into  a  corner,  but  they  had  their  revenge,  as  the  wronged  are 
always  sure  to  have  it  sooner  or  later.  They  made  their 
corner  the  counter  and  banking-house  of  the  world,  and  thence 
they  rule  it  and  us  with  the  ignobler  sceptre  of  finance.  Your 
grandfathers  mobbed  Priestley  only  that  you  might  set  up 
his  statue  and  make  Birmingham  the  headquarters  of  EngUsh 
Unitarianism.  We  hear  it  said  sometimes  that  this  is  an  age 
of  transition,  as  if  that  made  matters  clearer  ;  but  can  any  one 
point  us  to  an  age  that  was  not  ?  If  he  could,  he  would  show 
us  an  age  of  stagnation.     The  question  for  us,  as  it  has  been 


LOWELL  213 

for  all  before  us,  is  to  make  the  transition  gradual  and  easy, 
to  see  that  our  points  are  right  so  that  the  train  may  not  come 
to  grief.  For  we  should  remember  that  nothing  is  more 
natural  for  people  whose  education  has  been  neglected  than  to 
speU  evolution  with  an  initial  "  r."  A  great  man  struggling 
with  the  storms  of  fate  has  been  called  a  subhme  spectacle  ; 
but  surely  a  great  man  wrestling  with  these  new  forces  that 
have  come  into  the  world,  mastering  them  and  controlling 
them  to  beneficent  ends,  would  be  a  yet  sublimer.  Here  is 
not  a  danger,  and  if  there  were  it  would  be  only  a  better  school 
of  manhood,  a  nobler  scope  for  ambition.  I  have  hinted  that 
what  people  are  afraid  of  in  democracy  is  less  the  thing  itself 
than  what  they  conceive  to  be  its  necessary  adjuncts  and 
consequences.  It  is  supposed  to  reduce  all  mankind  to  a 
dead  level  of  mediocrity  in  character  and  culture,  to  vulgarise 
men's  conceptions  of  life,  and  therefore  their  code  of  morals, 
manners,  and  conduct — to  endanger  the  rights  of  property 
and  possession.  But  I  believe  that  the  real  gravamen  of  the 
charges  lies  in  the  habit  it  has  of  making  itself  generally  dis- 
agreeable by  asking  the  Powers  that  Be  at  the  most  incon- 
venient moment  whether  they  are  the  powers  that  ought  to 
be.  If  the  powers  that  be  are  in  a  condition  to  give  a  satis- 
factory answer  to  this  inevitable  question,  they  need  feel  in 
no  way  discomfited  by  it. 

Few  people  take  the  trouble  of  trying  to  find  out  what 
democracy  really  is.  Yet  this  would  be  a  great  help,  for  it  is 
our  lawless  and  uncertain  thoughts,  it  is  the  indefiniteness  of 
our  impressions,  that  fill  darkness,  whether  mental  or  physical, 
with  spectres  and  hobgoblins.  Democracy  is  nothing  more 
than  an  experiment  in  government,  more  likely  to  succeed  in 
a  new  soil,  but  likely  to  be  tried  in  all  soils,  which  must  stand 
or  fall  on  its  own  merits  as  others  have  done  before  it.  For 
there  is  no  trick  of  perpetual  motion  in  politics  any  more  than 
in  mechanics.  President  Lincoln  defined  democracy  to  be  / 
"  the  government  of  the  people  by  the  people  for  the  people."  /( 
This  is  a  sufficiently  compact  statement  of  it  as  a  political' 
arrangement.  Theodore  Parker  said  that  "  Democracy  meant 
not  '  I'm  as  good  as  you  are,'  but  *  You're  as  good  as  I  am.'  " 
And  this  is  the  ethical  conception  of  it,  necessary  as  a  com- 
plement of  the  other  ;  a  conception  which,  could  it  be  made 
actual  and  practical,  would  easily  solve  all  the  riddles  that  the 


214  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

old  sphinx  of  political  and  social  economy  who  sits  by  the 
roadside  has  been  proposing  to  mankind  from  the  beginning, 
and  which  mankind  have  shown  such  a  singular  talent  for 
answering  wrongly.  In  this  sense  Christ  was  the  first  true 
democrat  that  ever  breathed,  as  the  old  dramatist  Dekker 
said  He  was  the  first  true  gentleman.  The  characters  may  be 
easily  doubled,  so  strong  is  the  likeness  between  them.  A 
beautiful  and  profound  parable  of  the  Persian  poet  Jellaladeen 
tells  us  that  "  One  knocked  at  the  Beloved's  door,  and  a  voice 
asked  from  within  '  Who  is  there  ?  '  and  he  answered  '  It  is  I.' 
Then  the  voice  said,  '  This  house  will  not  hold  me  and  thee  '  ; 
and  the  door  was  not  opened.  Then  went  the  lover  into  the 
desert  and  fasted  and  prayed  in  solitude,  and  after  a  year  he 
returned  and  knocked  again  at  the  door  ;  and  again  the  voice 
asked  'Who  is  there  ?  '  and  he  said  '  It  is  thyself '  ;  and  the 
door  was  opened  to  him."  But  that  is  idealism,  you  will  say, 
and  this  is  an  only  too  practical  world.  I  grant  it ;  but  I  am 
one  of  those  who  believe  that  the  real  will  never  find  an  irre- 
movable basis  till  it  rests  on  the  ideal.  It  used  to  be  thought 
that  a  democracy  was  possible  only  in  a  smaU  territory,  and 
this  is  doubtless  true  of  a  democracy  strictly  defined,  for  in 
such  all  the  citzens  decide  directly  upon  every  question  of 
public  concern  in  a  general  assembly.  An  example  stiU  survives 
in  the  tiny  Swiss  canton  of  Appenzell.  But  this  immediate 
intervention  of  the  people  in  their  own  affairs  is  not  of  the 
essence  of  democracy  ;  it  is  not  necessary,  nor  indeed,  in  most 
cases,  practicable.  Democracies  to  which  Mr.  Lincoln's  defini- 
tion would  fairly  enough  apply  have  existed,  and  now  exist, 
in  which,  though  the  supreme  authority  reside  in  the  people, 
yet  they  can  act  only  indirectly  on  the  national  policy.  This 
generation  has  seen  a  democracy  with  an  imperial  figurehead, 
and  in  all  that  have  ever  existed  the  body  politic  has  never 
embraced  all  the  inhabitants  included  within  its  territory, 
the  right  to  share  in  the  direction  of  affairs  has  been  confined 
to  citizens,  and  citizenship  has  been  further  restricted  by 
various  limitations,  sometimes  of  property,  sometimes  of 
nativity,  and  always  of  age  and  sex. 

The  framers  of  the  American  Constitution  were  far  from 
wishing  or  intending  to  found  a  democracy  in  the  strict  sense 
of  the  word,  though,  as  was  inevitable,  every  expansion  of 
the  scheme  of  government  they  elaborated    has   been   in   a 


LOWELL  215 

democratical  direction.  But  this  has  been  generally  the  slow 
result  of  growth,  and  not  the  sudden  innovation  of  theory  ; 
in  fact,  they  had  a  profound  disbelief  in  theory,  and  knew 
better  than  to  commit  the  folly  of  breaking  with  the  past. 
They  were  not  seduced  by  the  French  fallacy  that  a  new  system 
of  government  could  be  ordered  hke  a  new  suit  of  clothes. 
They  would  as  soon  have  thought  of  ordering  a  new  suit  of. 
flesh  and  skin.  It  is  only  on  the  roaring  loom  of  time  that  the 
stuff  is  woven  for  such  a  vesture  of  their  thought  and  experience 
as  they  were  meditating.  They  recognised  fully  the  value 
of  tradition  and  habit  as  the  great  allies  of  permanence  and 
stability.  They  all  had  that  distaste  for  innovation  which 
belonged  to  their  race,  and  many  of  them  a  distrust  of  human 
nature  derived  from  their  creed.  The  day  of  sentiment  was 
over,  and  no  dithyrambic  affirmations  or  fine-drawn  analyses 
of  the  Rights  of  Man  would  serve  their  present  turn.  This 
was  a  practical  question,  and  they  addressed  themselves  to 
it  as  men  of  knowledge  and  judgment  should.  Their  problem 
was  how  to  adapt  English  principles  and  precedents  to  the  new 
conditions  of  American  life,  and  they  solved  it  with  singular 
discretion.  They  put  as  many  obstacles  as  they  could  contrive, 
not  in  the  way  of  the  people's  will,  but  of  their  whim.  With 
few  exceptions  they  probably  admitted  the  logic  of  the  then 
accepted  syllogism — democracy,  anarchy,  despotism.  But 
this  formula  was  framed  upon  the  experience  of  small  cities 
shut  up  to  stew  within  their  narrow  walls,  where  the  number 
of  citizens  made  but  an  inconsiderable  fraction  of  the  inhab- 
itants, where  every  passion  was  reverberated  from  house  to 
house  and  from  man  to  man  with  gathering  rumour  till  every 
impulse  became  gregarious  and  therefore  inconsiderate,  and 
every  popular  assembly  needed  but  an  infusion  of  eloquent 
sophistry  to  turn  it  into  a  mob,  all  the  more  dangerous 
because  sanctified  with  the  formahty  of  law.  ^ 

Fortunately  their  case  was  wholly  different.  They  were 
to  legislate  for  a  widely  scattered  population  and  for  States 
already  practised  in  the  discipline  of  a  partial  independence. 
They  had  an  unequalled  opportunity  and  enormous  advantages. 

^  The  effect  of  the  electric  telegraph  in  reproducing  this  trooping 
of  emotion  and  perhaps  of  opinion  is  yet  to  be  measured.  The  effect 
of  Darwinism  as  a  disintegrator  of  humanitarianism  is  also  to  be 
reckoned  with. 


216  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

The  material  they  had  to  work  upon  was  already  democratical 
by  instinct  and  habitude.  It  was  tempered  to  their  hands 
by  more  than  a  century's  schooling  in  self-government.  They 
had  but  to  give  permanent  and  conservative  form  to  a  ductile 
mass.  In  giving  impulse  and  direction  to  their  new  institutions, 
especially  in  supplying  them  with  checks  and  balances,  they 
had  a  great  help  and  safeguard  in  their  federal  organisation. 
The  different,  sometimes  conflicting,  interests  and  social 
systems  of  the  several  States  made  existence  as  a  Union  and 
coalescence  into  a  nation  conditional  on  a  constant  practice 
of  moderation  and  compromise.  The  very  elements  of  dis- 
integration were  the  best  guides  in  political  training.  Their 
children  learned  the  lesson  of  compromise  only  too  well,  and 
it  was  the  appUcation  of  it  to  a  question  of  fundamental  morals 
that  cost  us  our  civil  war.  We  learned  once  for  all  that  com- 
promise makes  a  good  umbrella  but  a  poor  roof  ;  that  it  is  a 
temporary  expedient,  often  wise  in  party  politics,  almost  sure 
to  be  unwise  in  statesmanship. 

Has  not  the  trial  of  democracy  in  America  proved,  on  the 
whole,  successful  ?  If  it  had  not,  would  the  Old  Town  be 
vexed  with  any  fears  of  its  proving  contagious  ?  This  trial 
would  have  been  less  severe  could  it  have  been  made  with  a 
people  homogeneous  in  race,  language,  and  traditions,  whereas 
the  United  States  have  been  called  on  to  absorb  and  assimilate 
enormous  masses  of  foreign  population,  heterogeneous  in  all 
these  respects,  and  drawn  mainly  from  that  class  which  might 
fairly  say  that  the  world  was  not  their  friend,  nor  the  world's 
law.  The  previous  condition  too  often  justified  the  traditional 
Irishman,  who,  landing  in  New  York  and  asked  what  his  poHtics 
were,  inquired  if  there  was  a  Government  there,  and  on  being 
told  that  there  was,  retorted,  "  Thin  I'm  agin  it  !  "  We  have 
taken  from  Europe  the  poorest,  the  most  ignorant,  the  most 
turbulent  of  her  people,  and  have  made  them  over  into  good 
citizens,  who  have  added  to  our  wealth,  and  who  are  ready 
to  die  in  defence  of  a  country  and  of  institutions  which  they 
know  to  be  worth  dying  for.  The  exceptions  have  been  (and 
they  are  lamentable  exceptions)  where  these  hordes  of  ignorance 
and  poverty  have  coagulated  in  great  cities.  But  the  social 
system  is  yet  to  seek  which  has  not  to  look  the  same  terrible 
wolf  in  the  eyes.  On  the  other  hand,  at  this  very  moment  Irish 
peasants  are  buying  up  the  worn-out  farms  of  Massachusetts, 


LOWELL  217 

and  making  them  productive  again  by  the  same  virtues 
of  industry  and  thrift  that  once  made  them  profitable 
to  the  English  ancestors  of  the  men  who  are  deserting  them. 
To  have  achieved  even  these  prosaic  results  (if  you  choose 
to  call  them  so),  and  that  out  of  materials  the  most  discordant 
— I  might  say  the  most  recalcitrant — argues  a  certain  bene- 
ficent virtue  in  the  system  that  could  do  it,  and  is  not  to  be 
accounted  for  by  mere  luck.  Carlyle  said  scornfully  that 
America  meant  only  roast  turkey  every  day  for  everybody. 
He  forgot  that  States,  as  Bacon  said  of  wars,  go  on  their  bellies. 
As  for  the  security  of  property,  it  should  be  tolerably  well 
secured  in  a  country  where  every  other  man  hopes  to  be  rich, 
even  though  the  only  property  qualification  be  the  ownership 
of  two  hands  that  add  to  the  general  wealth.  Is  it  not  the 
best  security  for  anything  to  interest  the  largest  possible 
number  of  persons  in  its  preservation  and  the  smallest  in  its 
division  ?  In  point  of  fact,  far-seeing  men  count  the  increasing 
power  of  wealth  and  its  combinations  as  one  of  the  chief  dangers 
with  which  the  institutions  of  the  United  States  are  threatened 
in  the  not  distant  future.  The  right  of  individual  property 
is  no  doubt  the  very  corner-stone  of  civilisation  as  hitherto 
understood,  but  I  am  a  little  impatient  of  being  told  that 
property  is  entitled  to  exceptional  consideration  because  it 
bears  all  the  burdens  of  the  State.  It  bears  those,  indeed, 
which  can  most  easily  be  borne,  but  poverty  pays  with  its 
person  the  chief  expenses  of  war,  pestilence,  and  famine. 
Wealth  should  not  forget  this,  for  poverty  is  beginning  to 
think  of  it  now  and  then.  Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  I 
see  as  clearly  as  any  man  possibly  can,  and  rate  as  highly,  the 
value  of  wealth,  and  of  hereditary  wealth,  as  the  security  of 
refinement,  the  feeder  of  all  those  arts  that  ennoble  and  beautify 
life,  and  as  making  a  country  worth  living  in.  Many  an  ances- 
tral hall  here  in  England  has  been  a  nursery  of  that  culture 
which  has  been  of  example  and  benefit  to  aU.  Old  gold  has 
a  civilising  virtue  which  new  gold  must  grow  old  to  be  capable 
of  secreting. 

I  should  not  think  of  coming  before  you  to  defend  or  to 
criticise  any  form  of  government.  All  have  their  virtues, 
all  their  defects,  and  all  have  illustrated  one  period  or  another 
in  the  history  of  the  race,  with  signal  services  to  humanity 
and  culture.     There  is  not  one  that  could  stand  a  cynical 


218  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

cross-examination  by  an  experienced  criminal  lawyer,  except 
that  of  a  perfectly  wise  and  perfectly  good  despot,  such  as  the 
world  has  never  seen,  except  in  that  white-haired  king  of 
Browning's,  who 

Lived  long  ago 
In  the  morning  of  the  world, 
When  Earth  was  nearer  Heaven  than  now. 

The  English  race,  if  they  did  not  invent  government  by  dis- 
cussion, have  at  least  carried  it  nearest  to  perfection  in  practice. 
It  seems  a  very  safe  and  reasonable  contrivance  for  occupying 
the  attention  of  the  country,  and  is  certainly  a  better  way  of 
settling  questions  than  by  push  of  pike.  Yet,  if  one  should 
ask  it  why  it  should  not  rather  be  called  government  by  gabble, 
it  would  have  to  fumble  in  its  pocket  a  good  while  before  it 
found  the  change  for  a  convincing  reply.  As  matters  stand, 
too,  it  is  beginning  to  be  doubtful  whether  Parliament  and 
Congress  sit  at  Westminster  and  Washington  or  in  the  editors' 
rooms  of  the  leading  journals,  so  thoroughly  is  everything 
debated  before  the  authorised  and  responsible  debaters  get 
on  their  legs.  And  what  shall  we  say  of  government  by  a 
majority  of  voices  ?  To  a  person  who  in  the  last  century 
woidd  have  called  himself  an  Impartial  Observer,  a  numerical 
preponderance  seems,  on  the  whole,  as  clumsy  a  way  of  arriving 
at  truth  as  could  well  be  devised,  but  experience  has  apparently 
shown  it  to  be  a  convenient  arrangement  for  determining 
what  may  be  expedient  or  advisable  or  practicable  at  any 
given  moment.  Truth,  after  all,  wears  a  different  face  to 
everybody,  and  it  would  be  too  tedious  to  wait  tUl  all  were 
agreed.  She  is  said  to  lie  at  the  bottom  of  a  well,  for  the 
very  reason,  perhaps,  that  whoever  looks  down  in  search  of 
her  sees  his  own  image  at  the  bottom,  and  is  persuaded  not 
only  that  he  has  seen  the  goddess,  but  that  she  is  far 
better-looking  than  he  had  imagined. 

The  arguments  against  universal  suffrage  are  equally  un- 
answerable. "  What,"  we  exclaim,  "  shall  Tom,  Dick,  and 
Harry  have  as  much  weight  in  the  scale  as  I  ?  "  Of  course, 
nothing  could  be  more  absurd.  And  yet  universal  suffrage 
has  not  been  the  instrument  of  greater  unwisdom  than  con- 
trivances of  a  more  select  description.  Assembhes  could  be 
mentioned  composed  entirely  of  Masters  of  Arts  and  Doctors 


LOWELL  219 

in  Divinity  which  have  sometimes  shown  traces  of  human 
passion  or  prejudice  in  their  votes.  Have  the  Serene  High- 
nesses and  Enhghtened  Classes  carried  on  the  business  of 
Mankind  so  well,  then,  that  there  is  no  use  in  trying  a  less  costly 
method  ?  The  democratic  theory  is  that  those  Constitutions 
are  likely  to  prove  steadiest  which  have  the  broadest  base, 
that  the  right  to  vote  makes  a  safety-valve  of  every  voter,  and 
that  the  best  way  of  teaching  a  man  how  to  vote  is  to  give  him 
the  chance  of  practice.  For  the  question  is  no  longer  the 
academic  one,  "Is  it  wise  to  give  every  man  the  ballot  ?  " 
but  rather  the  practical  one,  "  Is  it  prudent  to  deprive  whole 
classes  of  it  any  longer  ?  "  It  may  be  conjectured  that  it  is 
cheaper  in  the  long  run  to  lift  men  up  than  to  hold  them  down, 
and  that  the  ballot  in  their  hands  is  less  dangerous  to  society 
than  a  sense  of  wrong  in  their  heads.  At  any  rate  this  is  the 
dilemma  to  which  the  drift  of  opinion  has  been  for  some  time 
sweeping  us,  and  in  politics  a  dilemma  is  a  more  unmanageable 
thing  to  hold  by  the  horns  than  a  wolf  by  the  ears.  It  is  said 
that  the  right  of  suffrage  is  not  valued  when  it  is  indiscriminately 
bestowed,  and  there  may  be  some  truth  in  this,  for  I  have 
observed  that  what  men  prize  most  is  a  privilege,  even  if  it 
be  that  of  chief  mourner  at  a  funeral.  But  is  there  not  danger 
that  it  will  be  valued  at  more  than  its  worth  if  denied,  and  that 
some  illegitimate  way  wiU  be  sought  to  make  up  for  the  want 
of  it  ?  Men  who  have  a  voice  in  public  affairs  are  at  once 
affiliated  with  one  or  other  of  the  great  parties  between  which 
society  is  divided,  merge  their  individual  hopes  and  opinions 
in  its  safer,  because  more  generalised,  hopes  and  opinions,  are 
disciplined  by  its  tactics,  and  acquire,  to  a  certain  degree,  the 
orderly  qualities  of  an  army.  They  no  longer  belong  to  a 
class,  but  to  a  body  corporate.  Of  one  thing,  at  least,  we  may 
be  certain,  that,  under  whatever  method  of  helping  things 
to  go  wrong  man's  wit  can  contrive,  those  who  have  the  divine 
right  to  govern  will  be  found  to  govern  in  the  end,  and  that  the 
highest  privilege  to  which  the  majority  of  mankind  can  aspire 
is  that  of  being  governed  by  those  wiser  than  they.  Universal 
suffrage  has  in  the  United  States  sometimes  been  made  the 
instrument  of  inconsiderate  changes,  under  the  notion  of 
reform,  and  this  from  a  misconception  of  the  true  meaning 
of  popular  government.  One  of  these  has  been  the  substitution 
in  many  of  the  States  of  popular  election  for  official  selection 


220  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

in  the  choice  of  judges.  The  same  system  applied  to  miUtary 
officers  was  the  source  of  much  evil  during  our  civil  war,  and, 
I  beUeve,  had  to  be  abandoned.  But  it  has  been  also  true 
that  on  all  great  questions  of  national  policy  a  reserve  of  pru- 
dence and  discretion  has  been  brought  out  at  the  critical 
moment  to  turn  the  scale  in  favour  of  a  wiser  decision.  An 
appeal  to  the  reason  of  the  people  has  never  been  known  to 
fail  in  the  long  run.  It  is,  perhaps,  true  that,  by  effacing  the 
principle  of  passive  obedience,  democracy,  ill  understood, 
has  slackened  the  spring  of  that  ductility  to  discipline  which 
is  essential  to  "  The  unity  and  married  calm  of  States."  But 
I  feel  assured  that  experience  and  necessity  will  cure  this 
evil,  as  they  have  shown  their  power  to  cure  others.  And 
under  what  frame  of  policy  have  evils  ever  been  remedied  till 
they  became  intolerable,  and  shook  men  out  of  their  indolent 
indifference  through  their  fears  ? 

We  are  told  that  the  inevitable  result  of  democracy  is  to 
sap  the  foundations  of  personal  independence,  to  weaken  the 
principle  of  authority,  to  lessen  the  respect  due  to  eminence, 
whether  in  station,  virtue,  or  genius.  If  these  things  were 
so,  society  could  not  hold  together.  Perhaps  the  best  forcing- 
house  of  robust  individuality  would  be  where  public  opinion 
is  incHned  to  be  most  overbearing,  as  he  must  be  of  heroic 
temper  who  should  walk  along  Piccadilly  at  the  height  of  the 
season  in  a  soft  hat.  As  for  authority,  it  is  one  of  the  symptoms 
of  the  time  that  the  religious  reverence  for  it  is  decHning 
everywhere,  but  this  is  due  partly  to  the  fact  that  state-craft 
is  no  longer  looked  upon  as  a  mystery,  but  as  a  business,  and 
partly  to  the  decay  of  superstition,  by  which  I  mean  the  habit 
of  respecting  what  we  are  told  to  respect  rather  than  what 
is  respectable  in  itself.  There  is  more  rough  and  tumble  in 
the  American  democracy  than  is  altogether  agreeable  to  people 
of  sensitive  nerves  and  refined  habits,  and  the  people  take  their 
political  duties  lightly  and  laughingly,  as  is,  perhaps,  neither 
unnatural  nor  unbecoming  in  a  young  giant.  Democracies 
can  no  more  jump  away  from  their  own  shadows  than  the  rest 
of  us  can.  They  no  doubt  sometimes  make  mistakes  and 
pay  honour  to  men  who  do  not  deserve  it.  But  they  do  this 
because  they  believe  them  worthy  of  it,  and  though  it  be  true 
that  the  idol  is  the  measure  of  the  worshipper,  yet  the  worship 
has  in  it  the  germ  of  a  nobler  religion.     But  is  it  democracies 


LOWELL  221 

alone  that  fall  into  these  errors  ?  I,  who  have  seen  it  proposed 
to  erect  a  statue  to  Hudson,  the  railway  king,  and  have  heard 
Louis  Napoleon  hailed  as  the  saviour  of  society  by  men  who 
certainly  had  no  democratic  associations  or  leanings,  am  not 
ready  to  think  so.  But  democracies  have  likewise  their  finer 
instincts.  I  have  also  seen  the  wisest  statesman  and  most  )/ 
pregnant  speaker  of  our  generation,  a  man  of  humble  birth 
and  ungainly  manners,  of  little  culture  beyond  what  his  own 
genius  supplied,  become  more  absolute  in  power  than  any 
monarch  of  modern  times  through  the  reverence  of  his  country- 
men for  his  honesty,  his  wisdom,  his  sincerity,  his  faith  in 
God  and  man,  and  the  nobly  humane  simplicity  of  his  character. 
And  I  remember  another  whom  popular  respect  enveloped  as 
with  a  halo,  the  least  vulgar  of  men,  the  most  austerely  genial, 
and  the  most  independent  of  opinion.  Wherever  he  went 
he  never  met  a  stranger,  but  everywhere  neighbours  and  friends 
proud  of  him  as  their  ornament  and  decoration.  Institutions 
which  could  bear  and  breed  such  men  as  Lincoln  and  Emerson 
had  surely  some  energy  for  good.  No,  amid  all  the  fruitless 
turmoil  and  miscarriage  of  the  world,  if  there  be  one  thing 
steadfast  and  of  favourable  omen,  one  thing  to  make  optimism 
distrust  its  own  obscure  distrust,  it  is  the  rooted  instinct  in 
men  to  admire  what  is  better  and  more  beautiful  than  them- 
selves. The  touchstone  of  political  and  social  institutions 
is  their  ability  to  supply  them  with  worthy  objects  of  this 
sentiment,  which  is  the  very  tap-root  of  civilisation  and 
progress.  There  would  seem  to  be  no  readier  way  of  feeding 
it  with  the  elements  of  growth  and  vigour  than  such  an  organ- 
isation of  society  as  will  enable  men  to  respect  themselves, 
and  so  to  justify  them  in  respecting  others. 

Such  a  result  is  quite  possible  under  other  conditions  than 
those  of  an  avowedly  democratical  Constitution.  For  I  take 
it  that  the  real  essence  of  democracy  was  fairly  enough  defined  , . 
by  the  First  Napoleon  when  he  said  that  the  French  Revolution  / 
meant  "  la  carriere  ouverte  aux  talents  " — a  clear  pathway 
for  merit  of  whatever  kind.  I  should  be  inclined  to  paraphrase 
this  by  calling  democracy  that  form  of  society,  no  matter  what 
its  political  classification,  in  which  every  man  had  a  chance 
and  knew  that  he  had  it.  If  a  man  can  climb,  and  feels  himself 
encouraged  to  climb,  from  a  coalpit  to  the  highest  position 
for  which  he  is  fitted,  he  can  well  afford  to  be  indifferent  what 


222  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

name  is  given  to  the  government  under  which  he  lives.  The 
Bailli  of  Mirabeau,  uncle  of  the  more  famous  tribune  of  that 
name,  wrote  in  1771  :  "  The  Enghsh  are,  in  my  opinion,  a  hun- 
dred times  more  agitated  and  more  unfortunate  than  the  very 
Algerines  themselves,  because  they  do  not  know  and  will  not 
know  till  the  destruction  of  their  over-swoUen  power,  which 
I  beheve  very  near,  whether  they  are  monarchy,  aristocracy, 
or  democracy,  and  wish  to  play  the  part  of  aU  three."  England 
has  not  been  obliging  enough  to  fulfil  the  BaiUi's  prophecy, 
and  perhaps  it  was  this  very  carelessness  about  the  name, 
and  concern  about  the  substance  of  popular  government,  this 
skill  in  getting  the  best  out  of  things  as  they  are,  in  utilising 
all  the  motives  which  influence  men,  and  in  giving  one  direction 
to  many  impulses,  that  has  been  a  principal  factor  of  her 
greatness  and  power.  Perhaps  it  is  fortunate  to  have  an 
unwritten  Constitution,  for  men  are  prone  to  be  tinkering 
the  work  of  their  own  hands,  whereas  they  are  more  wilhng 
to  let  time  and  circumstance  mend  or  modify  what  time  and 
circumstance  have  made.  All  free  governments,  whatever  their 
name,  are  in  reality  governments  by  public  opinion,  and  it  is 
on  the  quality  of  this  public  opinion  that  their  prosperity 
depends.  It  is,  therefore,  their  first  duty  to  purify  the  element 
from  which  they  draw  the  breath  of  life.  With  the  growth 
of  democracy  grows  also  the  fear,  if  not  the  danger,  that  this 
atmosphere  may  be  corrupted  with  poisonous  exhalations 
from  lower  and  more  malarious  levels,  and  the  question  of 
sanitation  becomes  more  instant  and  pressing.  Democracy 
in  its  best  sense  is  merely  the  letting  in  of  hght  and  air.  Lord 
Sherbrooke,  with  his  usual  epigrammatic  terseness,  bids  you 
educate  your  future  rulers.  But  would  this  alone  be  a  sufficient 
safeguard  ?  To  educate  the  intelligence  is  to  enlarge  the 
horizon  of  its  desires  and  wants.  And  it  is  well  that  this 
should  be  so.  But  the  enterprise  must  go  deeper  and  prepare 
the  way  for  satisfying  those  desires  and  wants  in  so  far  as  they 
are  legitimate.  What  is  really  ominous  of  danger  to  the  exist- 
ing order  of  things  is  not  democracy  (which,  properly  under- 
stood, is  a  conservative  force),  but  the  Socialism,  which  may 
'find  a  fulcrum  in  it.  If  we  cannot  equalise  conditions  and 
fortunes  any  more  than  we  can  equalise  the  brains  of  men — 
and  a  very  sagacious  person  has  said  that  "  where  two  men 
ride  on  a  horse  one  must  ride  behind  " — we  can  yet,  perhaps, 


LOWELL  223 

do  something  to  correct  those  methods  and  influences  that 
lead  to  enormous  inequahties,  and  to  prevent  their  growing 
more  enormous.  It  is  all  very  well  to  pooh-pooh  Mr.  George 
and  to  prove  him  mistaken  in  his  political  economy.  I  do  not 
believe  that  land  should  be  divided  because  the  quantity  of  it 
is  limited  by  nature.  Of  what  may  this  not  be  said  ?  A 
fortion,  we  might  on  the  same  principle  insist  on  a  division  of 
human  wit,  for  I  have  observed  that  the  quantity  of  this  has 
been  even  more  inconveniently  limited.  Mr.  George  himself 
has  an  inequitably  large  share  of  it.  But  he  is  right  in  his 
impelling  motive  ;  right,  also,  I  am  convinced,  in  insisting 
that  humanity  makes  a  part,  by  far  the  most  important  part, 
of  political  economy  ;  and  in  thinking  man  to  be  of  more  con- 
cern and  more  convincing  than  the  longest  columns  of  figures 
in  the  world.  For  unless  you  include  human  nature  in  your 
addition,  your  total  is  sure  to  be  wrong  and  your  deductions 
from  it  fallacious.  Communism  means  barbarism,  but  Social- 
ism means,  or  wishes  to  mean,  co-operation  and  community 
of  interests,  sympathy,  the  giving  to  the  hands  not  so  large  a 
share  as  to  the  brains,  but  a  larger  share  than  hitherto  in  the 
wealth  they  must  combine  to  produce — means,  in  short,  the 
practical  application  of  Christianity  to  life,  and  has  in  it  the 
secret  of  an  orderly  and  benign  reconstruction.  State  Social- 
ism would  cut  off  the  very  roots  in  personal  character — self- 
help,  forethought,  and  frugaUty — which  nourish  and  sustain 
the  trunk  and  branches  of  every  vigorous  Commonwealth. 

I  do  not  believe  in  violent  changes,  nor  do  I  expect  them. 
Things  in  possession  have  a  very  firm  grip.  One  of  the 
strongest  cements  of  society  is  the  conviction  of  mankind  that 
the  state  of  things  into  which  they  are  born  is  a  part  of  the  order 
of  the  universe,  as  natural,  let  us  say,  as  that  the  sun  should 
go  round  the  earth.  It  is  a  conviction  that  they  will  not 
surrender  except  on  compulsion,  and  a  wise  society  should 
look  to  it  that  this  compulsion  be  not  put  upon  them.  For 
the  individual  man  there  is  no  radical  cure,  outside  of  human 
nature  itself,  for  the  evils  to  which  human  nature  is  heir. 
The  rule  will  always  hold  good  that  you  must 

Be  your  own  palace  or  the  world's  your  gaol. 

But  for  artificial  evils,  for  evils  that  spring  from  want  of 
thought,  thought  must  find  a  remedy  somewhere.     There  has 


224  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

been  no  period  of  time  in  which  wealth  has  been  more  sensible 
of  its  duties  than  now.  It  builds  hospitals,  it  establishes 
missions  among  the  poor,  it  endows  schools.  It  is  one  of 
the  advantages  of  accumulated  wealth,  and  of  the  leisure  it 
renders  possible,  that  people  have  time  to  think  of  the  wants 
and  sorrows  of  their  fellows.  But  all  these  remedies  are  partial 
and  palliative  merely.  It  is  as  if  we  should  apply  plasters  to  a 
single  pustule  of  the  small-pox  with  a  view  of  driving  out  the 
disease.  The  true  way  is  to  discover  and  to  extirpate  the  germs. 
As  society  is  now  constituted  these  are  in  the  air  it  breathes, 
in  the  water  it  drinks,  in  things  that  seem,  and  which  it  has 
always  beheved,  to  be  the  most  innocent  and  healthful.  The 
evil  elements  it  neglects  corrupt  these  in  their  springs  and 
pollute  them  in  their  courses.  Let  us  be  of  good  cheer,  how- 
ever, remembering  that  the  misfortunes  hardest  to  bear  are 
those  which  never  come.  The  world  has  outlived  much,  and 
will  outlive  a  great  deal  more,  and  men  have  contrived  to  be 
happy  in  it.  It  has  shown  the  strength  of  its  constitution  in 
nothing  more  than  in  surviving  the  quack  medicines  it  has 
tried.  In  the  scales  of  the  destinies  brawn  will  never  weigh 
so  much  as  brain.  Our  healing  is  not  in  the  storm  or  in  the 
whirlwind,  it  is  not  in  monarchies,  or  aristocracies,  or  democ- 
racies, but  will  be  revealed  by  the  still,  small  voice  that  speaks 
to  the  conscience  and  the  heart,  prompting  us  to  a  wider  and 
wiser  humanity. 


LORD  RANDOLPH  CHURCHILL 

Lord  Randolph  Churchill  came  into  the  House  of  Commons 
as  Member  for  the  family  borough  of  Woodstock  when  the 
Conservative  party  won  their  great  triumph  at  the  General 
Election  of  1874.  But  the  part  which  he  took  in  that  Parha- 
ment  was  insignificant,  and  it  was  not  until  the  tables  had  been 
turned  by  Mr.  Gladstone's  victory  in  1880  that  he  came  to  the 
front  as  a  debater  of  singular  force.  His  success  was  imme- 
diate, and  though  it  was  partly  due  to  his  own  personal 
qualities,  there  were  also  external  circumstances  which 
assisted  him.  After  the  death  of  Lord  Beaconsfield  in  1881 
the  Conservatives  had  no  single  head.  Lord  Sahsbury  led 
them  in  the  House  of  Peers,  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  led  them 
in  the  House  of  Commons.  It  occurred  to  Lord  Randolph 
Churchill  that  there  was  a  good  opportunity  for  the  develop- 
ment of  a  new  policy  in  vigorous  and  energetic  hands.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  there  was  much  to  support  this  view. 
On  the  one  hand,  the  latest  General  Election  had  tended  to 
discredit  the  authority  of  those  whose  proceedings  it  had 
condemned.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Liberal  party,  and  even 
the  Liberal  Cabinet,  appeared  to  contain  within  themselves 
elements  so  discordant  that  to  set  them  against  each  other 
might  not  be  a  difficult  task.  In  1874  DisraeH  had  a  mag- 
nificent opportunity.  Both  Houses  of  Parliament  were  at  his 
absolute  disposal.  In  1875  Gladstone  retired  from  the  Leader- 
ship of  the  Liberal  party,  and  his  successor.  Lord  Hartington, 
was  not  the  man  to  take  an  enterprising  initiative  of  his  own. 
Moreover,  Lord  Hartington  could  claim  no  authority  outside 
the  House  of  Commons.  It  was  there,  and  there  only,  that  he 
succeeded  Gladstone.  Liberals  and  Radicals  throughout  the 
country,  who  would  have  responded  at  once  to  any  call  from 
Gladstone  himself,  as  indeed  soon  appeared,  were  not  incUned 
to  be  enthusiastic  on  behalf  of  any  other  chief.     In  1880  they 


IS— {2171) 


225 


226  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

voted  for  Gladstone  and  against  Disraeli.  But  with  them  were 
associated  men,  represented  in  Parliament  out  of  aU  proportion 
to  their  numbers,  who  differed  far  more  from  Radicals  than 
from  Tories,  and  sincerely  regretted  Gladstone's  return.  Lord 
Randolph  Churchill  regarded  the  existence  of  this  section  as 
promising  well  for  the  future  of  a  new  party  which  could  strike 
out  a  line  of  its  own.  He  had  two  great  quahfications  of  a 
popular  leader.  In  the  first  place  he  could  produce  striking 
phrases  which  told  at  the  time,  and  were  remembered  after- 
wards. When  he  said  that,  if  Home  Rule  were  passed,  "  Ulster 
would  fight,  and  Ulster  would  be  right  "  ;  when  he  called 
Mr.  Gladstone  "  an  old  man  in  a  hurry  "  ;  when  he  nicknamed 
the  Home  Rulers  "  Separatists,"  he  achieved  success  with 
minds  which  mere  argument  might  never  have  reached.  In 
discerning  the  need  for  social  reform,  and  its  capabiUties  as 
the  poUcy  of  a  party,  he  looked  much  further  ahead  than  his 
colleagues.  His  differences  with  his  former  leaders  had  devel- 
oped his  combative  instincts,  and  increased  his  controversial 
powers.  The  speech  which  follows  is  particularly  interesting, 
because  it  shows  that  Lord  Randolph  had  thought  out  for 
himself  just  before  his  resignation  a  definite  and  constructive 
policy  for  the  future. 

Policy  of  Lord  Salisbury's  Second  Ministry 

Dartford,  October  2,  1886 

I  HAVE  to  return  to  you  my  very  sincere  and  earnest  thanks  for 
the  kind  welcome  which  you  have  accorded  to  me  this  after- 
noon ;  and  also  I  have  to  express  my  sense  of  the  value  which 
I  attach  to  those  recorded  expressions  of  confidence  in  the  form 
of  addresses  which  the  officers  of  your  various  associations 
have  been  kind  enough  to  present  to  me.  It  has  been  my  lot 
to  be  called  upon  to  perform  duties  of  a  most  anxious  and 
difficult  nature — duties  which  would  be  most  anxious  and  diffi- 
cult even  to  those  who  possessed  a  long  experience  and  great 
knowledge  of  public  life,  but  which  to  one  like  me,  who  has  no 


CHURCHILL  227 

great  experience  of  public  affairs,  and  who  has  not  been  many 
years  in  Parliament,  are,  indeed,  duties  so  anxious  and  so  diffi- 
cult that  they  could  not  be  at  all  adequately  performed  unless 
I  thought  that  I  was  sustained  by  a  considerable  body  of  public 
approval  in  this  country.  Undoubtedly  addresses  like  those 
which  you  have  given  me  are  of  immense  value  in  signifying 
to  me  that  I  have  not,  at  any  rate,  forfeited  as  yet  any  large 
measure  of  public  confidence.  It  is  my  most  pleasing  duty, 
not  only  on  my  own  behalf,  but  on  behalf  of  Her  Majesty's 
present  Government,  to  offer  you  our  cordial  and  sincere  con- 
gratulations on  the  signal  and  memorable  victory  which  your 
exertions  gained  for  the  constitutional  party  at  the  general 
elections  of  1885  and  1886.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  have 
studied  the  statistics  of  the  growth  of  constitutional  principles 
in  this  great  county  of  Kent.  In  the  year  1868 — when  Mr.  Dis- 
raeli appealed  to  the  country  after  having  passed  a  large  measure 
of  electoral  reform — there  were  returned  to  Parliament  from 
this  county  thirteen  Liberals  against  eight  Tories.  In  the  year 
1874  there  was  a  slight  improvement,  because  there  were 
returned  to  Parliament  thirteen  Tories  against  eight  Liberals. 
In  1880 — a  very  dark  year  for  the  Conservative  party — Kent 
held  her  own,  for  you  returned  sixteen  Tories  to  Parliament 
against  five  Liberals  ;  and  in  1885,  out  of  nineteen  consti- 
tuencies in  the  county  of  Kent,  you  did  not  return  one  single 
Gladstonian  candidate,  but,  by  large,  by  overwhelming,  by 
crushing,  majorities,  you  returned  to  Parliament  eighteen 
Conservatives  and  one  Liberal  Unionist,  and  that  unequalled 
position  you  managed  to  sustain  at  the  last  general  election. 
That  is  really  only  a  sign  of  what  has  been  going  on  all  over  the 
country.  There  has  been  going  on  over  the  whole  country  a 
steady  and  sure  growth  of  constitutional  principles,  a  steady 
and  increasing  indication  of  a  popular  belief  in  the  value  of  the 
British  Constitution.  But  I  attach  particular  importance  to 
this  adhesion  of  the  county  of  Kent  to  the  Constitutional 
cause.  The  county  of  Kent  is  a  county  with  many  most 
interesting  traditions — a  county  which  is  well  termed  the  garden 
of  England.  It  is  a  county  of  great  wealth,  of  great  homo- 
geneity, and  it  is  a  county,  if  I  may  use  such  an  expression,  of 
immense  individuahty.  Mr.  Gladstone  claims  that  he  has  got 
on  his  side  the  whole  of  the  civilised  world.  Well,  gentlemen, 
I  reply  that  he  is  welcome  to  the  whole  of  the  civilised  world  : 


228  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

but  give  me  the  county  of  Kent.  I  am  not  aware  that  the 
civilised  world  has  any  concrete  voting  power  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  but  I  am  aware  that  the  county  of  Kent  has  a 
concrete  voting  power  of  nineteen  members  on  the  Constitu- 
tional side,  and  I  say  to  Mr.  Gladstone,  "  You  are  perfectly 
welcome  to  the  civilised  world,  and  make  as  much  as  you  can 
out  of  it,  as  long  as  you  leave  us  the  nineteen  representatives 
of  the  county  of  Kent."  We  must  beware  of  one  thing,  how- 
ever :  we  must  not  dwell  too  fondly  on  the  past.  Politics  is 
not  a  science  of  the  past ;  politics  is  the  science  of  the  future. 
You  must  use  the  past  as  a  lever  with  which  to  manufacture 
the  future.  Politics  is  not  a  profession  which  consists  in 
looking  back  ;  it  is  not  a  profession  which  consists  in  standing 
still ;  it  is  in  this  country  essentially  a  profession  of  progress. 
Therefore,  we  must  use  our  great  victories  in  the  past  as  a 
means  of  attaining  others  in  the  future  ;  and  I  would  warn 
you  most  earnestly  against  the  dangers  of  over-confidence.  It 
was  over-confidence  more  than  anything  else  which  ruined  the 
Conservative  party  in  the  year  1880.  Seat  after  seat  was 
thrown  away  at  that  time  because  members  of  the  Conserva- 
tive party  and  Conservative  organisations  thought  that  their 
power  was  irresistible,  and  that  it  was  not  necessary  for  them 
to  make  an  effort.  We  have  before  us  now  a  long  road  to 
travel.  We  have  many  ranges  of  political  mountains  of  great 
difficulty  to  cross,  and  we  must  remember  that  "  he  that 
putteth  on  his  harness  must  not  boast  as  he  that  taketh  it  off." 
Our  journey  has  only  just  begun  ;  but  there  is  much  which 
ought  to  encourage  us  along  our  road.  They  say  that  a  good 
beginning  makes  a  good  ending,  and  I  think  we  have  made  a 
good  beginning  in  this  last  session  of  Parliament.  It  will 
interest  you  to  know  that  the  present  Government,  which 
only  commands  a  nominal  majority  over  the  Separatist  Opposi- 
tion of  ninety  votes,  has  been  supported  in  forty-three  divisions 
in  the  last  session  by  an  average  majority  of  100  votes.  That 
is  a  satisfactory  commencement.  I  do  not  know  that  we  can 
look  to  maintaining  that  majority  through  the  sessions  that 
are  to  come  ;  but,  at  any  rate,  there  we  have  got  it  up  to  now — 
an  average  recorded  majority  in  support  of  the  present  Govern- 
ment of  100  members  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Undoubtedly, 
gentlemen,  that  has  been  greatly  due  to  the  unparalleled 
sacrifices  and  to  the  unequalled  devotion  of  the  Tory  members 


CHURCHILL  229 

to  their  duties  in  the  House  of  Commons,  at  a  time  of  the  year 
when  a  performance  of  those  duties  was  attended  with  every 
trial  and  every  labour  that  you  can  imagine.  It  has  also  been 
due  to  the  loyal  support  which  we  have  received  from  the  whole 
party  of  the  Liberal  Unionists. 

Upon  this  fine  autumn  afternoon  I  do  not  propose  to  waste 
your  time  by  alluding  at  length  to  the  Separatist  Opposition  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  I  really  do  not  think  they  are  worth 
powder  and  shot.  An  Opposition — a  Parliamentary  Opposi- 
tion— more  hopelessly  demoralised,  more  hopelessly  dis- 
integrated, I  have  never  seen  and  I  have  never  read  of.  They 
have  no  leader,  and  they  have  no  policy.  Perhaps  I  am  wrong 
in  saying  that,  and  I  ought  to  have  put  it  in  another  way — 
they  sufter  from  having  too  many  leaders.  The  conduct  of 
the  Parliamentary  Opposition  reminds  me  of  what  used  to  be 
the  conduct  in  the  old  days  of  the  Dutch  army.  There  used 
to  be  in  command  of  the  Dutch  army  a  council  of  Dutch 
generals,  and  every  day  a  new  general  took  it  in  turn  to  com- 
mand, and  the  consequence  was  that  the  Dutch  army  invariably 
suffered  defeat.  And  so  with  the  Parliamentary  Opposition 
in  the  House  of  Commons.  You  have  one  day  Mr,  Parnell 
leading,  and  another  day  you  have  Mr.  Labouchere,  and  another 
day  you  have  Mr.  Conybeare  leading,  and  every  now  and  then 
you  have  Sir  William  Harcourt  leading,  and  occasionally,  as 
a  great  treat,  Mr.  Gladstone  drops  in  from  Bavaria.  They 
suffer  from  a  plethora  of  leaders.  Perhaps  I  was  also  wrong 
in  saying  they  have  no  policy.  They  have  a  policy,  and  their 
policy  is  this — to  bring  into  discredit,  to  put  a  stop  to,  and, 
if  possible,  to  demolish  and  destroy  all  Parliamentary  govern- 
ment. That  is  their  policy.  I  do  not  care  how  long  they 
pursue  that  policy,  because  it  is  a  policy  which  is  doomed  to 
failure.  It  is  a  policy  which  the  British  constituencies  will 
never  support,  because  they  are  attached  to  their  Parliament, 
they  are  proud  of  their  Parliament,  and  they  are  determined 
that  their  Parliament  shall  maintain  the  traditions  which  have 
been  handed  down  to  it.  So  much  for  the  Parliamentary 
Opposition.  Let  me  invite  your  attention  to  a  more  business- 
like question.  Let  me  ask  you  for  your  patience  and  indul- 
gence while  I  examine  with  some  detail  the  policy  which  the 
Government  has  pursued,  and  which  it  hopes  to  pursue. 

The  pohcy  which  the  Government  has  pursued  up  to  now 


230  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

has  been  called  by  our  opponents  "  a  policy  of  Royal  Com- 
missions." I  do  not  in  the  least  regard  that  taunt.  There  is 
a  very  old  proverb,  "  do  not  prophesy  until  you  know."  I 
will  tell  you  a  much  better  proverb,  and  I  will  take  out  a  patent 
for  it,  and  it  is  this  :  "  Do  not  legislate  unless  you  know." 
Now  Mr.  Gladstone — (a  Voice  :  "  We  are  sick  of  his  name  ") — 
I  am  afraid  you  wiU  hear  his  name  more  than  once  in  the  course 
of  my  remarks.  But  the  great  feature  of  the  legislation  of  that 
gentleman,  whose  name  you  are  so  sick  of,  was  that  he  legis- 
lated by  intuition,  whereas  the  Conservative  party,  or,  rather, 
the  Unionist  party,  are  determined  to  legislate  only  upon 
ascertained  facts.  You  are  aware  that  we  have  appointed 
four  principal  Commissions  to  inquire  into  four  great  subjects. 
We  have  appointed  two  Commissions  for  Ireland — one  to 
examine  into  the  operation  of  the  recent  land  laws  which  have 
been  passed  for  that  country — a  subject  of  most  bitter  and 
conflicting  controversy — a  subject  upon  which,  without  sound 
information,  it  would  be  impossible  and  insane  for  a  Govern- 
ment to  move.  We  have  also  appointed  a  Commission  to 
investigate  the  capacity  of  Ireland  for  development  by  public 
works  on  a  remunerative  scale,  and  by  the  support  of  public 
credit.  That  is  a  Commission  from  which  I  hope  great  things 
for  the  future  of  Ireland  ;  and  although  the  Parnellite  party 
poured  every  kind  of  ridicule  upon  it,  you  may  depend  upon  it 
that  there  are  resources  in  Ireland  which  may  be  scientifically 
developed  by  the  use  of  State  credit,  and  the  development  of 
which  must  bring  to  the  people  of  that  country  a  large  measure 
of  prosperity.  Let  us  take  the  United  Kingdom.  On  two 
questions  we  have  appointed  Commissions  to  inquire,  and  they 
are  two  questions  of  great  public  interest.  In  the  first  place, 
we  want  to  know  to  what  extent  this  long  commercial  and 
agricultural  depression  may  have  been  influenced,  or  caused, 
or  affected  by  the  great  changes  in  the  relative  value  of  the 
precious  metals.  That  is  a  subject  most  complicated,  most 
difficult,  and  most  mysterious  and  dark.  It  is  a  subject  upon 
which  sound  scientific  information  is  absolutely  essential. 
Then  there  is  another  inquiry,  in  which  I  take  the  greatest 
interest.  We  have  appointed  a  Royal  Commission  to  investi- 
gate the  scale  and  cost  of  our  system  of  government  in  this 
country.  We  know  that  the  expenditure  of  this  country  has 
been  increasing  rapidly,  and  we  want  to  be  certain  on  one 


CHURCHILL  231 

point — that  we  get  our  money's  worth  for  the  taxes  which  we 
spend  ;  and  we  want  to  be  perfectly  certain  that  it  is  not  in  our 
power  to  make  considerable  reductions  and  simplifications 
of  that  expenditure.  I  do  not  know,  gentlemen,  what  your 
opinions  may  be,  but  I  frankly  own  that  I  anticipate  much  good 
from  all  these  inquiries  ;  and  I  feel  certain  that  before  long 
these  inquiries  will  provide  your  ParHament  with  sound  material 
for  beneficial  legislation. 

I  turn  to  the  policy  of  the  future.  The  main  principle  of  that 
policy — and  I  pray  you  to  bear  this  in  mind,  gentlemen — ^the 
main  principle  and  the  guiding  motive  of  the  policy  of  the 
Government  in  the  future  will  be  to  maintain  intact  and 
unimpaired  the  union  of  the  Unionist  party.  We  know  how 
much  depends — how  almost  entirely  the  future  of  England 
depends — upon  the  imion  of  the  Unionist  party  ;  how  every 
institution  which  we  value,  how  all  the  liberties  which  we 
prize,  are  for  the  time  bound  up  in  the  union  of  that  party  ; 
and  everything  that  we  do,  either  in  domestic  or  foreign  affairs, 
will  be  subordinated  to  that  cardinal  principle,  the  union  of  the 
Unionist  party.  We  know  this,  gentlemen — and  I  am  not 
ashamed  to  state  it  before  this  great  meeting — that  we,  the 
present  Government,  owe  much  of  our  existence  and  much  of 
our  efficiency  to  the  Unionist  Liberals.  We  recognise  to  the 
full  the  great  sacrifices  those  gentlemen  made — political  sacri- 
fices such  as  none  of  us  have  been  called  upon  to  undergo. 
We  know  well  the  odium  they  have  incurred  among  their 
former  poHtical  friends,  and  we  consider  it  is  our  duty  as  a 
Government  so  to  adapt  our  policy  as  to  prove  to  the  British 
people  that  the  Unionist  Liberals  were  right  in  the  course  which 
they  took,  and  were  justified  in  the  great  political  sacrifices 
which  they  made.  I  wish  that  they  had  found  it  in  their  power 
to  join  us  effectively  in  the  heavy  labours  of  government.  I 
regret  that  they  have  not  yet  found  it  in  their  power  to  share 
with  us  Ministerial  responsibilities.  But,  at  any  rate,  it  is  our 
business  to  interpret  their  action  on  the  best  and  highest 
ground  for  them,  to  attribute  to  their  action  the  loftiest  and 
most  honourable  motives,  and  to  believe  they  are  animated 
by  no  other  desire  than  to  maintain  pure  and  intact  their 
political  power  and  independence,  so  as  to  rescue  the  great 
Liberal  party — which  has  so  sadly  gone  astray — from  all  the 
heresies  and  all  the  terrible  errors  into  which  Mr.  Gladstone 


232  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

has  led  them.  Once  more  I  repeat,  so  that  you  may  bear  it 
in  your  memories,  that  the  main,  the  guiding  principle  of  the 
policy  of  the  Government  will  be  to  preserve  the  union  of  the 
Unionist  party. 

Let  us  assume,  for  the  purpose  of  this  meeting,  that  the 
Government  have  been  successful  in  effecting  reforms  in 
Parliamentary  procedure  and  in  laying  the  foundation  for 
future  legislation,  and  let  us  consider  for  a  moment  the  various 
subjects  of  legislation  which  the  present  Government  ought, 
in  justice  to  the  country,  to  undertake  with  honesty  and  energy. 
I  think  we  ought  to  give  a  chief  place  to  the  legislative  require- 
ments of  England  and  Scotland.  Ireland  has  occupied — I  may 
say,  has  monopolised — the  time  of  Parliament  during  the  last 
ten  years  nearly,  and  the  requirements  of  England  and  Scot- 
land have  been  much  neglected,  and  great  arrears  of  legisla- 
tion have  accumulated  ;  and  I  think  that  it  is  the  business  of 
the  Government  to  commence  at  once  dealing  with  those 
arrears.  There  is  one  matter  which  seems  to  come  first.  I 
think  you  will  all  be  of  opinion  that  the  Government  will  be 
justified  in  asking  the  attention  of  the  House  of  Commons  to 
legislation  which  will  enable  them  and  their  supporters  to 
redeem  the  promises  and  pledges  which  they  have  made  to  the 
agricultural  labourers  of  England.  And  it  is  the  decided 
intention  of  the  Government  to  introduce  into  Parliament  a 
measure  which  should  provide  facilities,  through  the  operation 
of  local  authorities,  for  the  acquisition  by  the  agricultural 
labourer  of  freehold  plots  and  allotments  of  land.  I  do  not 
think  that  there  ought  to  be  much  difficulty  in  passing  such  a 
measure.  There  is  a  great  agreement  among  all  parties  as  to 
the  main  lines  of  the  measure,  and  I  do  not  in  the  least  wish  to 
detract  from  any  credit  which  may  be  justly  given  to  men  like 
Mr.  Jesse  Collings  or  Mr.  Chamberlain,  who  were  foremost 
in  bringing  this  subject  before  the  public  mind  of  England. 
My  hope  is  that  that  will  be  one  of  the  first  subjects  dealt 
with  by  the  present  Government  in  the  next  session.  There  is 
another  measure  closely  connected  with  that,  and  that  is 
legislation  by  which  facilities  should  be  afforded  for  the  sale 
of  glebe  lands.  That  is  intimately  connected  with  the  allot- 
ment question.  Not  only  would  it,  I  think,  have  a  beneficial 
effect  upon  the  incomes  of  the  clergy,  as  providing  them  with 
incomes  more  regular  and  more  secure  than  what  they  obtain 


CHURCHILL  233 

now  from  the  cultivation  or  the  letting  of  their  glebe  lands, 
but  also  those  glebe  lands  would  in  many  villages  and  many 
parts  of  England  afford  most  convenient  morsels  of  land  to  be 
divided  among  the  agricultural  labourers,  either  for  freehold 
plots,  or  for  allotments,  or  for  cottage  gardens  ;  and  that  is  a 
measure  which  I  hope  the  Government  will  be  able  to  introduce 
early  next  session.  Now  I  come  to  a  matter  which  is  of  great 
importance  to  you  in  Kent.  I  come  to  the  question  of  tithes. 
The  good  sense  of  the  people  of  Kent  has  settled,  I  understand, 
in  an  equitable  and  satisfactory  manner  to  all  parties,  the  ques- 
tion which  threatened  in  Kent  to  be  a  somewhat  thorny  one — 
the  question  of  extraordinary  tithes.  And  it  will  be  necessary 
for  the  Government  to  give  its  attention  to  the  general 
question  of  tithes  over  the  whole  of  England  and  Wales. 
This  much  may  perhaps  be  admitted,  that  the  settlement  of 
the  tithe  question  which  Parliament  carried  out  about  a  genera- 
tion ago,  has  not  proved,  on  the  whole,  in  its  working,  to  be  a 
complete  settlement ;  and  it  would  appear  that  the  intentions 
of  Parliament  at  that  time,  with  regard  to  the  payment  of 
tithe,  have  not  been  altogether  attained.  I  understand, 
however,  from  those  who  are  well  acquainted  with  the  question, 
and  who  represent  the  receivers  of  the  tithe,  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  difficult  to  provide  a  much  more  simple  and  much  more 
direct  mode  of  payment  of  the  tithe,  and  a  method  which  should 
not  in  any  degree  prove  to  be  a  vexatious  or  harassing  method 
to  the  occupier  of  land.  That  is  all  I  can  say  upon  the  tithe 
question  now,  but  I  rather  expect  that  by  legislation  on  the 
question,  without  doing  any  injustice  to  either  the  landlords 
or  the  clergy,  it  may  be  possible  for  a  great  majority  of  the 
landlords  of  this  country  to  take  upon  themselves  the  direct 
burden  of  the  incidence  of  tithe. 

There  is  another  measure  which  I  hope  the  Government  may 
be  able  to  deal  with,  and  which,  I  believe,  is  one  of  great  interest 
to  many  here.  It  is  of  enormous  interest  to  the  agricultural 
community — I  mean  the  question  of  railway  rates.  I  do  not 
think  there  ought  to  be  very  great  difficulty  in  coming  to  an 
agreement  upon  the  question  of  the  incidence  of  railway  rates. 
The  late  Government  had  a  Bill  in  hand  for  deahng  with  the 
question,  and  the  present  Government  have  a  Bill  in  hand  for 
that  purpose  ;  and  my  own  belief  is,  that  if  the  railway  com- 
panies are  approached  fairly,  if  they  are  treated  with  justice 


234  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

and  with  consideration,  they  would  not  be  unwilling  to  co- 
operate in  a  more  equitable  regulation  of  the  railway  rates  as 
regards  the  commercial  and  agricultural  interests  of  this 
country.  The  railway  rates  at  the  present  moment  operate 
in  a  way  which  Parliament  did  not  intend  when  it  gave  the 
railway  companies  their  powers.  Without  doubt  they  some- 
how manage  to  give  to  the  foreign  importer  and  to  the  foreign 
producer  unfair  advantages  over  the  home  producer.  It  is 
a  difficult  question,  and  the  railway  companies,  like  other 
corporations  or  property-holders,  have  rights  which  have  been 
conferred  on  them  by  Parliament,  and  arbitrary  and  unjust 
treatment  of  them  would  strike  a  blow  at  all  property  in  this 
country,  and  would  react  on  the  very  interest  you  desire  to 
serve.  But  still,  I  would  say  to  the  railway  companies,  they  had 
better  bear  in  mind  the  scriptural  text  :  "  Agree  with  your 
adversary  quickly  ;  while  you  are  in  the  way  with  him." 
Because  if  the  present  grievances  which  the  commercial  and 
the  manufacturing  and  the  agricultural  community  complain 
of  with  regard  to  the  regulations  of  railway  rates  are  suffered 
to  go  on  undealt  with,  and  growing  and  developing,  then  it  is 
possible  that  the  rights  and  the  property  of  railway  com- 
panies may  be  placed  in  jeopardy.  Those  measures  which  I 
have  alluded  to  are  all,  I  think,  though  important,  nevertheless 
minor  measures — measures  which  ought  not  to  excite  great 
party  controversy,  and  which  ought  to  be  passed  without  much 
difficulty  through  Parliament.  And  they  are  measures  which 
certainly  are  urgently  demanded.  There  is  another  measure 
which  the  country  requires  also,  and  that  is  a  measure  which 
shall  provide  for  a  cheaper  mode  of  land  transfer  and  for  cheaper 
methods  of  acquiring  landed  property  by  the  individual,  and 
for  the  registration  of  title.  All  I  can  say  on  that  point  is  this, 
that  the  Lord  Chancellor  of  the  present  Government  is  enthu- 
siastic on  the  question,  and  I  understand  that  he  has  ideas. 
And  you  may  depend  upon  it  that  when  a  Lord  Chancellor  of 
England  is  enthusiastic  on  any  question,  and  has  ideas  with 
regard  to  that  question,  it  would  be  a  bold,  courageous,  and 
clever  man  who  will  stop  the  Lord  Chancellor's  way.  There- 
fore I  think  you  may  look  forward  with  some  confidence  to 
a  satisfactory  measure  upon  this  important  question  being 
introduced  in  the  House  of  Lords  early  next  session. 

Then  there  is  the  great  question  which  overshadows  all 


CHURCHILL  235 

others,  and  which  will  absorb  all  the  time  and  energies  of  the 
Government,  and  that  is  the  establishment  in  our  country 
districts  of  a  genuinely  popular  form  of  local  government. 
That  is  a  question  which  we  do  not  intend  to  trifle  or  to  tamper 
with.  It  is  the  decided  intention  of  the  Government  to  take  it 
up  in  earnest,  and  to  endeavour  to  arrive  at  a  settlement  of  it. 
It  includes  two  very  large  questions  indeed.  It  includes  some 
comprehensive  rearrangement  and  readjustment  of  the 
incidence  of  local  taxation,  and  it  includes  some  provision  by 
which  personal  property  shall  be  brought  into  the  area  of  local 
taxation,  and  shaU  be  called  upon  to  contribute  a  far  more 
equal  share  than  it  does  now  in  the  expenses  of  local  govern- 
ment. The  question  of  local  government  also  includes  another 
very  large  and  thorny  question.  I  will  not  now  enter  into 
the  complexities  of  that  matter,  but  I  believe  it  is  possible 
for  your  local  bodies,  if  properly  constituted,  to  settle  most 
of  the  difficulties  and  most  of  the  controversies  which  have 
arisen  around  the  question  of  licensing.  At  any  rate,  I  think 
the  time  has  come  when,  by  an  agreement  of  all  parties — except 
enthusiasts  and  fanatics — a  real  and  genuine  move  forward 
can  be  made. 

There  is  another  point  in  which  I  am  specially  interested, 
which  I  cannot  omit  to  notice.  I  am  specially  interested  in  it 
from  the  office  which  I  have  the  honour  to  hold.  I  will  not 
conceal  from  you  that  my  own  special  object,  to  which  I  hope 
to  devote  whatever  energy  and  strength  or  influence  I  may 
possess,  is  to  endeavour  to  attain  some  genuine  and  con- 
siderable reduction  of  public  expenditure,  and  consequent 
reduction  of  taxation.  I  have  not  the  time,  nor  have  I  yet  the 
information,  which  would  enable  me  to  go  further  into  this 
matter  now  ;  but  I  frankly  confess  that  I  shall  be  bitterly 
disappointed  if  it  is  not  in  my  power  after  one  year,  or,  at  any 
rate,  two  years,  to  show  to  the  public  that  a  very  honest  and  a 
very  earnest  effort  has  been  attended  with  practical  and  sensible 
results.  I  think  you  will  all  agree  with  me  that  with  regard 
to  the  programme  of  legislation  I  have  provided  you  with,  it 
is  a  programme  more  than  sufficient  for  one  session  of  Parlia- 
ment. Indeed,  I  think  I  have  probably  sketched  out  the  work 
of  two  sessions  of  Parliament ;  because  you  must  remember 
that  in  addition  to  all  these  matters  you  will  probably  have  to 
consider  in  a  practical  manner  further  reforms  of  the  land  laws 


236  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

of  Ireland.  The  land  laws  of  Ireland  were  recently  reformed 
in  a  hasty  and  impulsive  manner.  There  are  many  imperfec- 
tions in  the  land  system  of  Ireland  at  present.  The  system 
of  double  ownership  in  Ireland  is  a  system  which  cannot  last 
long.  The  process  of  change  from  double  to  single  ownership 
must  somehow  be  accelerated  if  you  wish  to  produce  peace  in 
Ireland.  But,  in  addition  to  that,  you  will  have  to  endeavour, 
in  this  Parliament  at  any  rate,  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  system 
of  popular  local  government  in  Ireland — a  very  large  question 
to  solve,  very  difficult  on  which  to  obtain  the  co-operation  of 
different  parties,  but  a  question  which  no  Government  and  no 
party  can  agree  to  shirk.  In  addition  to  that  there  is  another 
question  which  will  very  shortly  come  up  for  consideration — 
a  question  affecting  the  agricultural  community.  I  refer  to  the 
question  of  popular  elementary  education.  That  is  now  being 
examined  into  by  a  Royal  Commission,  and  until  that  Com- 
mission reports  no  government  can  act.  But  when  the  report 
comes  up,  and  when  it  has  been  considered  and  digested,  you 
will  find  that  legislation  on  popular  elementary  education  is 
urgently  demanded  by  very  large  masses  of  our  people. 

I  have  told  you  that  the  prospects  of  the  Government  are 
very  fair,  but  I  have  also  told  you  that  the  work  which  is  before 
the  Government  is  very  heavy.  It  is  so  heavy  that,  if  the 
prospects  of  the  Government  were  not  fair,  that  work  would 
be  almost  appalling.  But  there  are  matters  which  are  abso- 
lutely outside  the  range  of  legislation,  which  no  Parliament,  and 
which,  to  some  extent  no  Government,  can  touch.  A  nation 
does  not  live  by  legislation  alone  ;  there  are  other  matters, 
beyond  the  control  of  Parliament  and  of  Government,  and  in 
that  area  of  subjects  which  is  outside  the  reach  of  Ministers 
or  of  parties  I  find  one  most  cheering  and  encouraging  fact, 
which  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  bring  to  your  notice.  There  are 
distinct  and  definite  symptoms  of  a  real  revival  of  trade,  and  of 
commercial  enterprise  in  this  country.  Now,  if  this  revival  is 
continued,  you  may  depend  upon  it,  it  will  very  soon  react 
upon  the  agricultural  community  and  the  agricultural  interest, 
which  is  very  dear  to  some  here,  because  if  we  can  once  more 
restore  some  measure  of  prosperity  and  activity  to  our  manu- 
facturing towns,  you  wiU  have  almost  immediately  a  great 
demand  for,  and  a  great  consumption  of,  agricultural  produce. 
If  we  can  only  get  the  town  population  to  work  in  this  country, 


CHURCHILL  237 

you  may  depend  upon  it  we  shall  soon  have  the  rural  districts 
busy  and  prosperous.  This  revival  of  trade  is  shown  by  many 
trustworthy  signs.  It  is  shown,  in  the  first  place,  by  great 
commercial  activity  in  America.  Our  American  friends  are 
always  ahead  of  everybody  else,  and  what  I  hope  is,  that  they 
may  not,  by  their  over-zeal  and  activity,  spoil  what  promises 
to  be  a  good  future,  and  that  they  will  not  be  led  into  over- 
speculation,  which  may  produce  panic  and  further  depression. 
But  the  revival  is  also  shown  by  the  revenue  returns.  I  prefer 
not  to  dwell  upon  those  returns  in  detail  at  present,  for  to  some 
extent  they  would  be  illusory,  and  my  impression  might  be 
mistaken  ;  but  still  the  revenue  returns  do  show  signs  of  a 
revival  of  trade  in  this  country  ;  and  there  is  also  this  great 
fact,  that  the  great  merchants  and  the  great  warehouse  pro- 
prietors of  this  country  are  now  beginning  to  find  that  their 
accumulations  of  stocks  of  manufactured  and  of  raw  materials 
are  becoming  exhausted.  Upon  these  accumulations  they  have 
traded  for  some  years,  and  they  have  become  exhausted  and 
their  stock  requires  replenishing  ;  and  that  being  so,  and  nearly 
all  being  in  the  same  position,  they  are  running  into  the  market 
to  replenish  their  stocks,  and  consequently  you  have  a  healthy 
and  natural  rise  in  prices.  It  seems  certain  that  there  is  a 
revival  of  trade  going  on — a  revival  which  seems  to  be  a  real 
revival ;  and  it  would  not  be  rash  or  premature  to  say  that  we 
have  perhaps,  at  last,  touched  the  bottom  of  this  terrible  and 
protracted  commercial  and  agricultural  depression  under  which 
we  have  been  so  many  years  labouring.  But  there  is  one  thing 
which  is  necessary  to  a  real  revival  of  trade  which  is  to  endure 
and  which  is  to  increase.  The  people  of  this  country  must 
have  a  Government  in  which  they  have  confidence.  Confi- 
dence is  necessary — absolutely  vital — to  all  enterprise,  agri- 
cultural or  commercial.  The  people  of  this  country  must  know 
that  they  have  a  Government  which  will  preserve  law  and 
order.  They  must  know  that  they  have  a  Government 
which  does  not  intend  to  be  squeezed,  which  does  not  intend 
to  be  frightened,  by  any  passing  or  transitory  clamour,  or  by 
the  noise  of  faction.  They  must  have  a  Government  which 
will  recall  from  their  starry  exile  those  laws  of  political  economy 
which  Mr.  Gladstone  so  summarily  banished.  They  must 
have  a  Government  in  office  which  will  respect  the  rights  of 
property,   and  which  has  consideration  for  the  sanctity  of 


238  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

contract.  For  years  in  England  you  have  had  no  such 
Government,  and  the  absence  of  such  a  Government  has 
aggravated  the  commercial  depression.  I  do  earnestly  believe 
and  hope  that  you  have  such  a  Government  now  ;  and  if  that 
belief  of  mine  becomes  at  all  general,  and  at  all  popular,  this 
revival  of  trade  will  progress  speedily  and  merrily. 

Now,  you  will  be  glad  to  hear  that  I  am  drawing  near  the 
close  of  my  remarks.  There  are  on  the  political  horizon — 
otherwise  an  horizon  as  fair  almost  as  that  which  stretches 
before  me  this  fine  autumn  afternoon — there  are  on  the  poli- 
tical horizon  two  dark  clouds,  which  may  develop  into  storm 
and  hurricane,  which  may  shatter  the  brightest  prospects,  and 
destroy  all  the  best  and  wisest  calculations.  I  allude  specially 
to  the  social  condition  of  Ireland  and  to  the  aspect  of  foreign 
policy.  In  Ireland,  I  regret  to  say,  you  have  the  agitators 
hard  at  work,  determined  to  leave  that  country  no  peace,  no 
rest  from  political  agitation.  You  have  these  agitators,  led 
by  Mr.  Gladstone  and  by  Mr.  Parnell,  who,  you  may  be  certain, 
will  stick  at  nothing,  and  will  recoil  from  nothing,  which  may 
make  the  government  of  the  Queen  impossible  in  Ireland. 
They  have  declared  that  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  British 
Government  and  the  British  Parliament  to  govern  Ireland, 
and  they  will  do  all  they  know  to  make  good  their  assertion. 
I  believe  their  iniquitous,  their  unscrupulous,  projects  will  fail. 
I  believe,  and  I  hope,  their  plans  will  be  utterly  confounded  ; 
and  I  base  my  hopes  and  belief  upon  two  or  three  good  reasons, 
which  I  will  give  to  you.  In  the  first  place,  the  difficulty  of 
Ireland  is  mainly  an  agrarian  and  agricultural  difficulty. 
Whatever  evils  the  legislation  of  1881  may  have  had,  this  much 
must  be  said  for  it,  that  under  it  the  tenantry  of  Ireland 
gained  enormous  advantages.  If  Mr.  Parnell  were  to  lose  the 
support  of  the  tenantry  of  Ireland,  or  if  they  became  lukewarm 
in  his  support,  or  refused  to  go  in  for  acute  agrarian  disorder, 
the  power  of  Mr.  Parnell  would  rapidly  fade  away.  Now  mark 
what  the  advantages  are  which  the  tenantry  of  Ireland  obtained 
under  the  Land  Act  of  1881.  Every  farmer  in  Ireland,  with 
the  exception  of  the  leaseholder,  could  get  his  rent  fixed 
before  a  court  of  law  upon  a  scale  of  prices,  and  obtain  what 
has  been  denominated  a  fair  rent.  That  generally  turns  out 
to  be  a  reduction  of  rent  by  about  25  per  cent.  He  also  gets 
fixity  of  tenure,  which  means  a  renewable  lease  of  fifteen  years. 


CHURCHILL  239 

during  which  he  cannot  be  disturbed  by  his  landlord  ;  and, 
moreover,  he  gets  the  right  to  sell  to  anyone  to  whom  he  will, 
for  the  highest  price  he  can  get,  the  interest  in  this  lease.  You, 
who  are  acquainted  with  agricultural  matters,  know  that  these 
are  enormous  advantages,  and  that  they  represent  a  definite 
and  considerable  money  value  ;  and  I  do  not  think  that  the 
farmers  of  Ireland  are  so  foolish  or  so  shortsighted  as  to  risk 
the  loss  of  these  great  pecuniary  advantages,  as  they  would 
undoubtedly  do  if  they  indulged  to  any  large  extent  in  acute 
agrarian  disorder.  There  is  a  second  reason  why  I  do  not  think 
Mr.  Pamell's  efforts  will  succeed.  They  have  this  year  an 
abundant  harvest  in  Ireland.  They  have  had  in  Ireland  every 
year  since  1880  a  bountiful  and  prosperous  harvest,  which  is 
more  than  we  can  say  in  England.  And  they  have,  conse- 
quently, plenty  of  produce  in  Ireland,  and  the  quantity  of  the 
produce  of  the  land  to  a  certain  extent  counterbalances  the  low 
prices  which  it  fetches.  The  prices  are  now  recovering,  and  I 
learn,  on  authority,  that  the  price  of  butter  and  young  stock 
has  made  a  sensible  rise  within  the  last  few  weeks  in  Ireland. 
That  is  another  reason  why,  I  think,  there  ought  not  to  be  any 
great  agrarian  disorder  in  Ireland.  My  third  reason  is  that  I 
have  confidence  in  the  moderation  of  the  Irish  landlords.  I 
do  not  believe  that  the  Irish  landlords  are  so  foolish  as  to  play 
into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Parnell.  I  believe  all  the  assertions  of 
Mr.  Parnell  and  his  followers,  that  there  will  be  wholesale  and 
unjust  evictions  in  Ireland,  are  utterly  unfounded  and  untrue. 
I  believe  that  the  landlords  of  Ireland  are  disposed  to  exercise 
their  rights — the  little  rights  which  your  Parliament  has  left 
them — with  all  justice  and  moderation  ;  and  you  must  receive 
with  the  greatest  caution  the  statements  of  the  Irish  party  as 
to  the  cruelty  of  the  Irish  landlords.  Of  course,  if  Mr.  Parnell 
is  successful,  as  he  and  his  party  hope  to  be,  in  organising  a 
general  repudiation  of  rent  all  over  Ireland,  there  naturally 
will  be  a  struggle.  But,  after  all,  that  is  human  nature  ;  and 
if  one  party  chooses  to  deny  and  repudiate  the  legal  rights  of 
another,  the  other  party  is  really  justified  in  endeavouring  to 
show  that  those  legal  rights  are  supported  and  will  be  given 
effect  to  by  the  law  of  the  land.  But  if,  during  the  winter  in 
Ireland,  we  are  not  confronted  by  any  no-rent  manifesto,  if 
we  are  not  confronted  by  any  general  no-rent  movement, 
then  I  am  as  certain  as  that  I  am  standing  before  you  that  the 


240  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

landlords  of  Ireland  will,  by  no  action  of  theirs,  provoke  the 
anger  of  their  tenantry,  and  will  not  have  recourse  to  harsh 
or  unjust  evictions,  and  will  not,  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases,  endeavour  to  exact  rents  which,  from  one  cause  or 
another,  it  may  be  impossible  to  pay.  For  all  these  reasons  I 
am  of  opinion  that  Mr.  Parnell's  programme  will  probably  fail. 
I  hope  it  will.  And  I  have  great  hopes  of  the  immediate 
future  in  Ireland.  I  think  that  the  Irish  people  know  that 
they  have  a  Government  in  power  who  are  absolutely  deter- 
mined at  all  costs,  and  in  spite  of  any  danger — political  or 
otherwise — to  preserve  law,  to  maintain  the  law,  to  assert  the 
rights  of  property,  and  to  preserve  order.  From  that  duty 
on  no  consideration  whatever  wall  we  be  made  to  shrink.  No 
longer  will  we  tolerate  that  the  state  of  Ireland  shall  continue 
to  be  a  disgrace  to  England  and  a  blot  upon  the  fair  fame  and 
character  of  the  British  Empire.  Law  and  order  must  be 
made  to  prevail  in  Ireland  ;  but  the  Irish  people  are  very 
quick  and  very  shrewd.  They  know  when  a  Government  is 
in  earnest ;  and  my  behef  is  that,  directly  or  indirectly,  large 
classes  and  large  bodies  of  the  Irish  people  will  co-operate 
with  the  Government  in  their  endeavours  to  restore  order  in 
Ireland,  and,  therefore,  although  I  go  back  to  my  original 
proposition  and  state  that  the  prospect  in  Ireland  is  gloomy 
and  menacing  to  some  extent,  yet  I  have  great  hopes  for  the 
future,  and  I  do  see  real  and  clear  signs  of  daylight  which  may 
lead  one  to  expect  a  better  and  brighter  future  in  Ireland. 

Of  the  state  of  foreign  affairs  I  regret  I  am  not  able  to  speak 
to  you  with  such  confidence.  Far  more  serious,  perhaps,  than 
any  other  matter  is  the  state  of  things  which  has  arisen  in 
Bulgaria.  In  the  autumn  of  last  year,  when  Lord  Sahsbury 
was  at  the  Foreign  Office,  we  had  every  reason  to  hope  that  the 
union  of  Eastern  Roumelia  with  Bulgaria  imder  the  sove- 
reignty of  Prince  Alexander  would  develop  a  prosperous  and 
independent  nation,  in  the  growing  strength  of  which  might 
ultimately  be  found  a  peaceful  and  true  solution  of  the  Eastern 
Question.  These  hopes  have  been  for  the  moment  to  a  great 
extent  dashed.  A  brutal  and  cowardly  conspiracy,  consum- 
mated before  the  young  community  had  had  time  to  consoli- 
date itself,  was  successful  in  this,  that  it  paralysed  the  growing 
authority  of  the  Prince,  and  deprived  Bulgaria  of  an  honoured 
and  trusted  leader.      At  the  present  moment  the  freedom  and 


CHURCHILL  241 

independence  of  Bulgaria,  as  well  as  of  the  kingdoms  of  Servia 
and  Roumania,  would  appear  to  be  seriously  compromised. 
This  grave  question  is  undoubtedly  attracting  much  public 
attention  in  this  country.  It  has  been  said  by  some,  and  even 
by  persons  of  authority  and  influence,  that  in  the  issues  which 
are  involved  England  has  no  material  interest.  Such  an 
assertion  would  appear  to  me  to  be  far  too  loose  and  general. 
The  sympathy  of  England  with  liberty,  and  with  the  freedom 
and  independence  of  communities  and  nationalities,  is  of  ancient 
origin,  and  has  become  the  traditional  direction  of  our  foreign 
policy.  The  policy  based  on  this  strong  sympathy  is  not  so 
purely  sentimental  as  a  careless  critic  might  suppose.  It 
would  be  more  correct,  indeed,  to  describe  such  a  poHcy  as 
particular,  and,  in  a  sense,  as  selfish,  for  the  precious  liberties 
which  we  enjoy,  and  the  freedom  of  Europe  from  tyranny  and 
despotism,  are  in  reality  indissolubly  connected.  To  England 
Europe  owes  much  of  her  modem  popular  freedom.  It  was 
mainly  Enghsh  effort  which  rescued  Germany  and  the  Nether- 
lands from  the  despotism  of  King  Philip  of  Spain,  and  after 
him  from  that  of  Louis  XIV  of  France.  It  was  Enghsh  effort 
which  preserved  the  liberties  of  Europe  from  the  desolating 
tyranny  of  Napoleon.  In  our  own  times  our  own  nation  has 
done  much,  either  by  direct  intervention  or  by  energetic  moral 
support,  to  establish  upon  firm  foundations  the  freedom  of 
Italy  and  of  Greece.  The  policy  of  Lord  Beaconsfield  in  1878, 
so  much  misrepresented,  so  much  misunderstood,  had  this 
for  its  most  conspicuous  characteristic,  that  it  rescued  the 
young  liberties  of  the  peoples  in  the  Balkan  Peninsula,  who, 
having  been  saved  from  the  frying-pan  of  Turkish  misrule, 
were  in  danger  of  falling  into  the  fire  of  Russian  autocracy. 
Times  and  circumstances  alter,  and  the  particular  policy 
which  may  be  suitable  for  one  set  of  circumstances  may  require 
to  be  modified  as  those  circumstances  change.  A  generation 
ago  Germany  and  Austria  were  not  so  sensitive  as  they  are 
now  to  the  value  of  political  liberty.  Nor  did  they  appreciate 
to  its  full  extent  the  great  stability  of  institutions  which  poli- 
tical Uberty  engenders  ;  and  on  England  devolved  the  duty 
— the  honourable  but  dangerous  duty — of  setting  an  example 
and  leading  the  way.  Those  were  the  days  of  Lord  Palmer- 
ston  ;  but  times  have  changed,  and  it  is  evident,  from  the 
speech  of  the  Hungarian  Prime  Minister  on  Thursday,  that  the 

i6— (2171) 


242  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

freedom  and  the  independence  of  the  Danubian  Principalities 
and  of  the  Balkan  nationalities  are  a  primary  and  vital  object 
in  the  pohcy  of  the  Austro-Himgarian  Empire.  Those  things 
being  so,  it  may  well  be  that  England  can  honourably  and 
safely  afford  to  view  with  satisfaction  that  Power  whose 
interests  are  most  directly  and  vitally  concerned  assuming 
the  foremost  part  in  this  great  international  work.  We  must, 
of  course,  take  it  for  granted,  as  I  am  doing,  that  the  liberty- 
giving  policy  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  will  be  carefully  and  watch- 
fully protected.  Whatever  modification  this  great  fact  may 
enable  us  to  make  in  our  foreign  policy,  whatever  diminution 
of  isolated  risk  or  sole  responsibility  this  may  enable  us  to 
effect,  you  may  be  certain  of  one  thing — that  there  will  be  no 
sudden  or  violent  departure  by  Her  Majesty's  present  Govern- 
ment from  those  main  principles  of  foreign  policy  which  I  have 
before  aUuded  to,  and  which  for  nearly  three  centuries  mark  in 
strong,  distinct,  and  clear  lines,  the  course  of  the  British 
Empire  among  the  nations  of  the  world.  There  are  Powers 
in  Europe  who  earnestly  and  honestly  desire  to  avoid  war  and 
to  preserve  peace,  to  content  themselves  with  their  possessions 
and  their  frontiers,  and  to  concentrate  their  energies  on  com- 
mercial progress  and  on  domestic  development.  There  are 
other  Powers  which  do  not  appear  to  be  so  fortunately  situated, 
and  who,  from  one  cause  or  another,  which  it  is  not  necessary 
to  analyse  or  examine,  betray  from  time  to  time  a  regrettable 
tendency  towards  contentious  and  even  aggressive  action. 
It  is  the  duty  of  any  British  Government  to  exhaust  itself  in 
efforts  to  maintain  the  best  and  most  friendly  relations  with 
aU  foreign  States,  and  to  lose  no  opportunity  of  offering 
friendly  and  conciliatory  counsels  for  the  purpose  of  mitigating 
national  rivalries  and  of  peacefully  solving  international  dis- 
putes. But  should  circumstances  arise  which,  from  their 
grave  and  dangerous  nature,  should  force  the  Government  of 
the  Queen  to  make  a  choice,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the 
sympathy  and,  if  necessary,  even  the  support,  of  England  will 
be  given  to  those  Powers  who  seek  the  peace  of  Europe  and  the 
liberty  of  peoples,  and  in  whose  favour  our  timely  adhesion 
would  probably,  and  without  the  use  of  force,  decide  the  issue. 
Our  policy  in  these  anxious  times — subject  always  to  the  car- 
dinal principle  of  maintaining  the  union  of  the  Unionist  party 
— will  be  to  pursue  an  even  and  steady  course,  avoiding  the 


CHURCHILL  243 

dangers  of  officious  interference  and  unnecessary  initiative 
on  the  one  hand,  and  an  attitude  of  selfish  and  timid  isolation 
on  the  other.  And  I  earnestly  hope  that  we  may  be  successful 
in  contributing  to  the  preservation  of  that  general  peace  and 
security  which,  however  necessary  and  advantageous  it  may 
be  for  other  nations,  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  progress  and 
prosperity  of  the  British  Empire. 


LORD   LYTTON 

Lord  Lytton's  speech  here  given  was  the  first  of  the  few  he 
delivered  in  the  House  of  Lords.  It  is  a  defence  of  his  own 
policy  in  the  Viceroyalty  of  India,  which  he  had  just  resigned. 
That  policy  consisted  in  an  attempt  to  check  Russian  aggression 
by  establishing  British  influence  over  Afghanistan.  Lord 
Lytton,  the  second  peer  of  the  title  and  the  first  Earl,  was 
appointed  to  succeed  Lord  Northbrook  as  Governor-General 
of  India  in  1876.  He  was  then  British  Minister  at  Lisbon. 
His  father,  the  poet,  novelist,  and  politician,  had  been  one  of 
Disraeli's  most  intimate  friends,  famous  for  his  set  speeches 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  but  not  a  man  of  much  practical 
influence  in  politics.  The  second  Lord  Lytton  was  at  that 
time  known  as  a  popular  diplomatist,  the  author  of  brilliant 
despatches,  and  a  devoted  admirer  of  Disraeli,  The  experiment 
of  sending  him  to  India  was  regarded  as  a  bold  and  interesting 
one.  Disraeli's  idea  was  that  India  should  be  governed 
directly  from  Downing  Street  on  Imperialist  principles,  and 
that  the  cautious  policy  of  Lord  Lawrence  should  at  once  be 
set  aside.  He  knew  nothing  about  India.  But  his  oriental 
imagination  was  fired  by  the  dream  of  re-creating  the  Great 
Mogul's  Empire,  with  the  forms  and  pageantry  of  the  past, 
to  be  controlled  by  himself  through  the  instrumentality  of  a 
sympathetic  friend.  Lord  Lytton's  speech,  which  follows,  is 
an  apology  for  the  failure  of  his  Afghan  schemes,  and  a  protest 
against  the  abandonment  of  Candahar,  the  acquisition  of  which 
was  then  their  one  tangible  result.  It  is  certainly  very  well 
designed  for  its  purpose,  and  is  indeed  a  good  example  of 
ingenious  pleading  for  a  poHcy  which  had  encountered  fatal 
obstacles,  such  as  its  promoters  never  foresaw.  Lord  Lytton, 
hke  his  father,  was  a  composer  of  set  speeches,  which  might 
almost  be  called  essays,  and  lack  the  element  of  spontaneity. 

244 


LYTTON  245 

But  they  show  the  man,  fanciful  and  romantic,  inchned 
to  be  a  dreamer,  and  fascinated  by  the  British  Empire  in  India 
as  a  picturesque  embodiment  of  infinite  possibihties.  Lord 
Lytton  had  not  his  father's  genius  and  originaUty.  He  was  a 
man  who  touched  hfe  at  many  points,  social,  hterary,  and 
diplomatic.  His  easy  command  of  language,  the  grace  and 
charm  of  his  style,  were  the  setting  of  an  active  imagination 
which  gave  his  pohtics  an  unusual  and  attractive  touch  of 
poetic  fancy  and  flow. 

The  Abandonment  of  Candahar 
House  of  Lords,  Jan.  10,  1881 

The  Earl  of  Lytton,  in  rising,  pursuant  to  Notice,  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  House  to  affairs  in  Afghanistan,  and  to  make  a 
personal  statement  with  reference  to  his  own  action  as  Viceroy 
of  India,  in  regard  to  the  late  Afghan  War,  said — 

My  Lords,  in  addressing  your  Lordships  for  the  first  time, 
I  deeply  feel  how  great  is  my  need  for  your  indulgence  ;  for 
not  only  do  I  lack  the  Parliamentary  experience  and  ability 
so  eminently  possessed  by  those  to  whom  this  House  is  accus- 
tomed to  listen  upon  questions  of  importance,  but  my 
consciousness  of  this  deficiency  is  increased  by  a  solemn  sense 
of  the  national  magnitude  and  gravity  of  the  matter  about 
which  I  have  given  notice  of  my  desire  to  call  your  attention 
this  evening.  I  am  anxious  that  the  terms  of  that  notice 
should  not  be  misunderstood.  The  object  of  it  is  to  lay  before 
the  House,  as  promptly  and  plainly  as  I  can,  considerations 
which  appear  to  me  deserving  of  the  early  attention  of  your 
Lordships,  in  consequence  of  the  announcement  made  to  us 
in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  that  Her  Majesty  has  been 
advised  to  abandon  the  possession  of  Candahar — a  city  twice 
conquered  by  Her  Majesty's  troops.  But  it  is  not  my  intention 
to  enter  at  large  into  the  long  history  of  the  war  which  led  to 
the  occupation  of  Candahar.  I  shall  only  refer  very  briefly 
to  certain  matters  connected,  no  doubt,  with  the  story  of 
that  war,  but  which  have  an  essential  bearing  upon  the  whole 
policy  of  the  measure  we  have  been  informed  of.  These  matters, 
and  the  importance  of  them,  were  strongly  impressed  on  my 


246  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

mind  when  I  was  Viceroy  of  India,  and  I  do  not  think  they  have 
yet  received  from  this  House  or  from  this  country  the  emphatic 
notice  of  which  they  seem  to  me  deserving.  To  that  extent, 
therefore,  my  remarks  will  partake  of  the  character  of  a 
personal  explanation  ;  and,  also,  in  so  far  as  it  is  not  my  inten- 
tion to  conclude  them  with  a  motion.  For  this  course  I  have 
a  strong  reason — at  least,  it  is  a  reason  strongly  felt  by  myself. 
My  Lords,  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  fair  either  to  the  present 
Viceroy  or  to  the  present  Government,  if  I  endeavoured  to- 
night to  elicit  from  your  Lordships  a  definite,  and  possibly  a 
premature,  opinion  upon  a  measure  for  which  Her  Majesty's 
Ministers  and  Her  Majesty's  Viceroy  are  jointly  responsible, 
and  of  which  neither  the  motives  nor  the  objects  have  yet  been 
communicated  to  us.  I  have  always  strongly  felt  that  India 
ought  not  to  be  governed  from  England — at  least,  not  in  the 
sense  of  being  directly  ruled  upon  the  dictatorship,  either  of 
Parliamentary  Parties,  however  numerous  and  enlightened, 
or  even  of  retired  Viceroys,  however  earnest  and  experienced, 
who  cannot  possibly  have  that  personal  familiarity  with  the 
constantly  fluctuating  aspect  of  Indian  affairs  which  is  neces- 
sarily possessed  by  the  Governor-General  in  Council.  Holding 
this  opinion,  I  should,  indeed,  be  sorry  if  my  first  act  upon 
my  taking  my  seat  in  this  House  were  to  come  impetuously 
forward  with  a  motion  which  might,  in  my  own  opinion  at 
least,  have  even  an  appearance  of  such  a  tendency,  and,  very 
probably,  such  a  practical  effect.  My  present  object,  therefore, 
is  only  to  lay  before  this  House  the  views  I  was  induced  to 
form,  as  Viceroy  of  India,  upon  the  important  question  of 
Candahar  ;  in  order  to  obtain  for  them,  before  that  question 
is  discussed,  with  a  view  to  a  decision  on  the  papers  we  are 
still  awaiting  from  Her  Majesty's  Government,  not  a  recorded 
opinion,  but  such  fair  consideration  as  your  Lordships  may 
reasonably  be  asked  to  vouchsafe  them  in  recognition  of  the 
great  national  importance  of  the  subject  to  which  they  refer. 
In  the  discussion  which  took  place  last  Thursday  on  the 
Address  it  was  observed  by  my  noble  friend  the  late  Prime 
Minister,  that  the  policy  of  the  present  Government  appeared 
to  be  based  on  the  principle  of  inverting  and  reversing,  as  far 
as  they  practically  can,  the  action  of  their  predecessors.  Now, 
I  think  this  observation  was  especially  true  and  just  as  regards 
the  Afghan   policy  of  the  two  Governments.     The  Afghan 


LYTTON  247 

policy  of  the  late  Government  was  affirmed  and  supported 
by  very  large  majorities  in  this  and  the  other  House  of  Parlia- 
ment upon  the  most  prolonged  and  vivacious  discussion  of 
every  conceivable  topic  in  any  wise  relevant  to  the  incidents 
or  objects  of  the  Afghan  War.  That  discussion  was  practi- 
cally closed  by  the  verdict  of  Parliament,  and  it  is  not  my 
desire  to  reopen  it.  I  shall  accept  the  recorded  result  of  it  as 
the  starting-point  of  the  observations  I  wish  to  offer  in  depre- 
cation of  the  abandonment  of  Candahar.  But  if  the  abandon- 
ment of  Candahar  be  right,  then  the  Afghan  War  was  wrong 
— at  least,  this  appears  to  be  what  Her  Majesty's  Ministers 
intended  us  to  feel.  For,  in  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  they 
have  distinctly  indicated  their  settled  disposition  either  to 
reject  as  worthless,  or  to  repudiate  as  unjustifiable,  the  most 
important  practical  result  of  that  war,  and  to  revert  as  closely 
as  they  can  to  the  condition  of  things  which  preceded  the  war, 
which  occasioned  the  war,  and  of  which  the  war  was  intended 
to  prevent  the  recurrence.  This  is  obvious,  because,  if  we  are 
to  retire  from  Candahar  only  with  the  intention  of  going  back 
to  Candahar  as  often  as  it  may  hereafter  become  necessary, 
either  to  control  the  action  of  the  Cabul  Power,  or  to  punish 
its  misbehaviour,  or  to  exclude  foreign  influence  from  Afghan- 
istan, or  to  correct  the  results  of  such  influence,  why  then, 
of  course,  it  would  be  more  reasonable  and  more  effectual  for 
this  purpose  to  remain  at  Candahar,  which  is  already  in  our 
possession,  on  the  principle  that  prevention  is  better  than 
cure.  Therefore,  I  presume  that  the  control  of  the  Cabul 
Power,  and  the  exclusion  of  foreign  influence  from  Afghanistan 
are  not  among  the  motives  of  this  decision.  My  Lords,  I  do 
not  know  what  the  motives  of  it  may  have  been  ;  but  I  do 
know  very  well  what  the  effect  of  it  will  be.  In  India  the  effect 
of  it  will  be  this — in  every  native  bazaar,  in  every  Indian  Court, 
along  every  Indian  frontier,  it  will  display  to  Her  Majesty's 
subjects,  feudatories,  and  neighbours,  in  that  part  of  the  world, 
the  unaccustomed  and  bewildering  spectacle  of  the  most 
violent  and  inexplicable  oscillation  in  the  policy  of  their 
rulers  ;  and,  if  I  know  anything  of  Oriental  character,  such 
a  spectacle  will  certainly  not  be  conducive  to  their  respect 
for  the  sobriety  of  your  rule,  or  their  confidence  in  the  serenity 
of  your  wisdom  and  the  value  of  your  word.  That  is  what  will 
be  the  effect  of  it  in  India.     And  now,  what  will  be  the  effect 


248  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  it  in  England  ?     It  will  be  to  cast  upon  the  late  Government 
— no,  I  will  not  say  this,  for  I  believe  that  to  be  impossible— 
but    it    will,    at    least,    advertise  to  the  whole  country  the 
deliberate  desire  and  intention  of  the  present  Government  to 
cast  upon  their  predecessors  in  office  the  odium — the  unmerited 
odium — of  having  involved  India  in  a  great  and  costly  war, 
leading  to  no  appreciable  result  of  adequate  benefit  to  the 
permanent  security  of  the  Empire  on  behalf  of  which  that 
war  was  waged.      Now,  I  must  say  I  do  not  think  the  late 
Government  has  deserved  of  its  successors  that  they  should 
endeavour  to  place  it  in  such  a  position  as  this.     For  my  own 
part,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  if  a  full  and  complete  equi- 
valent be  not  now  obtained  for  all  the  blood  and  treasure  cost 
us  by  the  war — or,  rather,  the  two  wars  undertaken  in  Afghanis- 
tan— wars  which  could  have  been  neither  averted  nor  evaded 
by  any  Administration  responsible  for  the  security  of  India — 
the  fault  of  this  will  not  rest  with  the  late  Government  of  India  ; 
it  will  not  rest  with  Her  Majesty's  late  Ministers  ;    but  it 
will  rest,  and  history  will  make  it  rest,  with  those  who  reject 
the  results  of  that  war  and  refuse  even  to  retain  the  advantages 
secured  by  it.     My  Lords,  I  must  also  add  that — considering 
that  Parliament  has,  by  large  and  repeated  majorities,  con- 
firmed the  principles  and  approved  the  objects  of  the  Afghan 
War — the  presumption  is,  to  say  the  least,  primd  facie  against 
a  measure  which  implies  that  those  principles  are  wrong  and 
those  results  worthless.     This,  I  confess,  is  the  point  of  view 
from  which  I  now  approach  the  question  whether  we  ought  to 
abandon  Candahar  or  to  retain  it.      I  do  not  know,  and  the 
House   does   not   know,   what   are   the   reasons   which  have 
induced  the  present  Government  to  come  to  the  decision  that 
Candahar  ought  to  be  abandoned,  and  to  advise  Her  Majesty 
to  this  effect  ;   but  I  do  say  that  such  a  decision  ought  not  to 
be  carried  out  without  a  fair,  an  impartial,  and,  if  necessary, 
a  repeated  reference  to  the  reasons  which  induced  the  late 
Government  to  come  to  the  precisely  opposite  conclusion  that 
Candahar  ought  to  be  retained,  and  to  advise  Her  Majesty 
to  that  effect.      My    Lords,    these  reasons   were  numerous, 
they  were  serious,  and  they  were  carefully  considered.     But, 
for  the  present,  they  may  all  be  summed  up  in  the  conviction, 
to  which  the  late  Government  was  led  by  them,  upon  a  full 
review  of  the  whole  condition  of  those  affairs  with  which  you 


LYTTON  249 

are  now  dealing  in  Afghanistan — that  the  permanent  main- 
tenance of  the  British  Power  at  Cabul — I  do  not  say  neces- 
sarily by  means  of  annexation,  though  neither  do  I  shrink 
from  saying  by  means  of   annexation   should  that  become 
necessary  ;   but,  at  any  rate,  in  some  form  or  other,  direct  or 
indirect,  which,  for  all  practical  purposes,  will  be  a  substantial 
reality — is  now  the  only  effectual  safeguard  against  a  recur- 
rence of  the  danger  so  conspicuously  brought  into  light,  and 
so  forcibly  pressed  upon  our  attention,  by  our  experience  of 
the  late  Afghan  War,  and  our  knowledge  of  the  circumstances 
which  gave  rise  to  it.     Whatever  may  have  been  the  merits 
or  demerits  of  that  war,  it  has  conclusively  established,  beyond 
all  possibility  of  reasonable  or  honest  question,  one  fact  of 
supreme  importance.     That  fact  is  the  facility  with  which 
Russia — if  she  has  established  her  influence  in  Afghanistan, 
or   if  she  can  establish  her  influence  there— will  always  be 
able,  whenever  she  desires,  to  cripple  the  action  or  embarrass 
the   policy  of  England  in  Europe  by  disturbing  the  security 
of  England  in  India  ;    and  to  do  this,  moreover,  without  even 
employing  her  own  troops  for  the  purpose,  but  simply  by 
creating  a  diversion  on  the  North-West  Frontier  of    India 
through  an  alliance  with  the  Cabul  Power.     This,  I  say,  is 
the  one  great  fact  you  have  now  to  deal  with,  and  which, 
whatever  be  your  policy,  you  must  always  bear  in  mind.    It  is 
established  on  evidence  of  the  most  formidable  character.     It 
cannot  be  disputed,   and  it  ought  not  to  be  shirked.     My 
Lords,  the  Russian  Mission  to  Cabul,  which  was  the  immediate 
occasion  of  the  Afghan  War,  is  a  proceeding  of  which  the 
morality  has  been  justified  on  the  ground  that  it  was  virtually 
a  war  measure  legitimatised  by  the  fact  that  our  European 
relations  with  Russia  were,  at  that  time,  strained  to  the   very 
verge  of  imminent  hostilities.     But  we  are  not  concerned  to 
discuss  the  morality  of  that  proceeding.     What  does  practi- 
cally concern  us  is  the  danger  of  it.     And,  from  this  point  of 
view,  it  matters  nothing  to  us  whether  the  Mission  was  the 
result  of  sudden  impulse  or  long  premeditation.     If  it  was 
the  result  of  sudden  impulse,  it  clearly  shows  us  how  close  is 
the  peril  to  which  we  shall  at  all  times  be  exposed  from  the 
establishment  in  Afghanistan  of  any  foreign  influence  more 
powerful,  or  more  energetically  exerted  than  our  own.     If, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  was  the  result  of  careful  preparation. 


250  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

it  shows  us,  no  less  clearly,  how  great  is  the  value  attached  by 
Russia  to  the  acquisition  of  such  an  influence,  and  what  is 
the  purpose  to  which  she  will  put  it  if  she  acquires  it.  In  the 
one  case  you  must  look  upon  Afghanistan  as  a  loaded  pistol 
lying  on  your  doorstep,  ready  to  be  exploded  in  the  full  front 
of  your  power  whenever  Russia,  upon  a  sudden  impulse, 
stretches  out  a  hasty  hand  to  seize  it.  In  the  other  case  you 
are  fully  warned  of  the  mischief  which  such  a  weapon  may 
inflict  on  you  if  you  ever  relax  your  own  firm  grasp  upon  the 
butt  end  of  it.  In  both  cases  the  danger  is  the  same  ;  and  in 
either  case  the  magnitude  of  such  a  danger  can  scarcely  be 
exaggerated ;  and  in  connection  with  this  consideration 
there  is  another  which  must  always  be  taken  into  account. 
I  do  not  suppose  there  exists  in  Europe  a  man  whose  mind  is 
loaded  with  weightier  or  more  constant  cares,  arising  out  of 
^vider  interests,  than  the  Sovereign  who  personally  administers 
the  vast  Empire  of  Russia.  It  is  practically  impossible  for 
the  Russian  Government  at  St.  Petersburg  to  be  incessantly 
watching  and  controlling  the  detailed  action  of  its  local 
authorities  in  a  region  so  remote  as  Central  Asia.  The  Russian 
Governor-General  at  Tashkend  thus  occupies,  in  his  great 
Satrapy  as  a  representative  of  a  distant  and  despotic  Govern- 
ment, a  position  of  great  practical  independence  ;  and  if  he 
be  an  able,  energetic,  and  ambitious  man,  anxious  to  extend 
the  influence  or  the  territory  of  his  Sovereign,  he  will  naturally 
do  a  great  many  things  which  he  has  not  been  instructed  to 
do — at  the  risk  of  being  disavowed  if  he  fails,  but  in  the  hope 
of  winning  honour  and  reward  if  he  succeeds.  This  considera- 
tion leads  me  to  the  point  of  what  I  have  to  say  about  the 
object  and  origin  of  that  Russian  Mission.  It  was  not  an 
unpremeditated  Mission.  It  was  not  an  impromptu  act  of 
retaliation  or  precaution.  But  it  was  the  carefully  prepared 
result  of  three  years*  preliminary  correspondence,  and  three 
years'  direct  negotiation — in  all,  six  years  of  patient  prepara- 
tion. I  affirm  this  briefly,  but  positively.  It  would  take  me 
all  night  to  prove  in  detail  what  I  affirm  ;  but  the  proofs  of 
it  are  to  be  found  by  those  who  care  to  search  for  them, 
obscurely  buried  and  inconveniently  dispersed  through 
numerous  Blue  Books,  all  of  which  are  accessible  to  your 
Lordships.  And,  in  one  word,  this  is  what  they  prove.  From 
the  year  1872  to  the  year  1875  the  Governor-General  of  Russian 


LYTTON  251 

Turkestan  was  in  constant  communication  with  the  Ameer  of 
Cabul ;  and  his  communications  were  regarded — I  must  say 
most  reasonably  regarded — by  the  Ameer  and  his  advisers  as 
having  no  other  conceivable  object  than  that  of  establishing 
Russian  influence  in  Afghanistan.  The  Ameer  was  at  first 
seriously  alarmed,  and  afterwards  dangerously  attracted, 
by  the  increasing  significance  of  these  communications  ;  and, 
in  the  year  1873,  he  made  to  the  British  Government  a  strong 
appeal  on  the  subject  of  them.  With  the  result  of  that  appeal 
he  was,  as  your  Lordships  well  know,  dissatisfied.  Great, 
however,  as  is  the  importance  I  attach  to  this  incident,  as  the 
turning-point  of  our  relations  with  Afghanistan,  it  is  not  my 
present  intention  to  refer  to  it  any  further.  For  it  was  the 
subject  of  animated  controversy  in  this  House  only  two  years 
ago  ;  and  I  do  not  wish  to  revive  that  controversy,  or  to  pro- 
voke on  the  part  of  any  noble  Lord  in  this  House  those  feelings 
of  personal  acrimony  which  I  am  most  anxious  not  to  import 
into  my  ovm  remarks.  But  the  fact  remains,  and  I  state  it  as  a 
matter  of  history,  without  wishing  to  use  it  as  a  matter  of 
controversy,  that,  from  the  year  1875  to  the  year  1878,  the 
Russian  Governor-General  was,  for  all  practical  purposes, 
permanently  represented  at  Cabul,  in  the  most  effectual 
manner,  by  means  of  incessant  relays  of  special  envoys  or 
agents  ;  the  one  always  arriving  before  the  other  departed. 
The  Government  of  India,  moreover,  had  the  strongest  possible 
reasons  to  believe,  and,  indeed,  to  know,  that  the  object  of 
these  incessant  special  missions  and  secret  communications 
was  to  negotiate  and  prepare  that  alliance  which  they  enabled 
General  Stoletieff  afterwards  to  conclude  so  easily  and  rapidly 
at  Cabul  in  the  year  1878.  My  Lords,  the  terms  of  that 
alliance,  which  was  an  alliance  defensive  and  offensive  against 
India,  are  known  to  the  Indian  Government  and  to  Her 
Majesty's  Ministers.  But  as  they  have  not  yet  been  made 
known  to  the  Parliament  and  the  people  of  this  country,  and 
as  I  am  not  yet  aware  whether  it  is  the  intention  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government  to  lay  them  before  the  House,  I  will 
not  now  refer  to  them.  All  I  wish  to  urge  upon  your  Lord- 
ships' serious  consideration  is  the  broad  fact  which  appears 
to  me  established  by  all  the  circumstances  I  have  thus  briefly 
indicated  in  regard  to  the  position  of  the  Cabul  Power,  between 
the  now  no  longer  distant  bounds  of  the  Russian  and  British 


252  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Empires  in  Asia.  Thus  situated,  no  Ameer  of  Cabul  can 
practically  stand  alone  and  aloof  from  the  influence  of  one  or 
other  of  the  two  great  European  Empires  with  which  Afghan- 
istan is  contiguous.  He  must  inevitably  fall  under  the  control 
either  of  the  British  or  of  the  Russian  Power  ;  and,  if  he  does 
not  faU  under  British  control,  it  is  obvious  that  he  will  fall 
under  Russian  control.  To  deny  this  appears  to  me  as  extra- 
vagant a  proposition  as  it  would  be  to  assert  that  a  stick, 
balanced  on  its  end  and  left  to  itself,  will  not  fall  in  one  direc- 
tion or  another.  And  now  let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that 
Afghanistan  falls  under  the  control  of  Russia.  Can  any  of  your 
Lordships  doubt  for  a  moment  that  the  establishment  of 
Russian  influence  in  Afghanistan  would  be  practically  incom- 
patible with  the  untroubled  maintenance  of  the  British  Power 
in  India  ?  My  Lords,  it  does  not  lie  in  the  mouth  of  any 
responsible  statesman  to  maintain  such  an  opinion.  And, 
certainly,  no  such  opinion  was  entertained  by  the  late  Lord 
Lawrence,  whose  authority  on  this  subject  was  so  frequently 
invoked  in  your  discussions  of  two  years  ago.  Ten  years 
previous  to  the  event  of  which  I  am  now  speaking  the  only 
danger  beyond  our  North-West  Frontier  anticipated  by  Lord 
Lawrence,  or  by  anyone  else,  was  from  the  establishment  of 
Russian  influence  in  Afghanistan  by  forcible  means.  Lord 
Lawrence  could  not  then  discuss,  for  no  one  then  foresaw,  the 
danger  which  actually  did  arise  ten  years  later  from  the  public 
presence  of  the  Russian  Power  at  Cabul — not  as  the  foe,  but 
as  the  avowed  friend  and  ally  of  the  Ameer  of  Cabul,  at  a  time 
when  that  Prince  had  ceased  to  be  the  avowed  friend  and 
ally  of  the  British  Government.  Yet  even  then,  in  a  valuable 
Minute  dated  1868,  Lord  Lawrence  recorded  his  opinion  that 
it  is  so  necessary  to  exclude  Russian  influence  from  Afghanistan 
— aye,  and  to  exclude  it  at  any  cost — that  Russia,  he  said, 
ought  to  be  plainly  told  that  any  further  advance  upon  her 
part  beyond  a  given  point  towards  India — and,  my  Lords, 
her  Asiatic  frontiers  were  then  far  less  close  to  ours  than  they 
are  now — would  entail  upon  her  war  with  England  in  all  parts 
of  the  world.  War  in  all  parts  of  the  world  !  Such  was  the 
importance  attached  by  Lord  Lawrence  to  the  efficacious  and 
permanent  exclusion  of  Russian  influence  from  Afghanistan  ; 
and  I  think  the  leading  members  of  the  present  Cabinet  are 
all   equally   committed   to   this   principle.     For   the   Cabinet 


LYTTON  253 

which  held  office  from  1868  to  1874  exacted  from  Russia,  in 
1869,  a  formal  engagement,  since  then  repeatedly  renewed, 
to  regard  and  treat  Afghanistan  as  a  State  entirely  excluded 
from  the  sphere  of  Russia's  legitimate  influence.  If,  then, 
all  responsible  British  statesmen  and  all  practical  Indian 
Administrators  are  agreed  as  to  the  importance  of  maintaining 
British,  and  excluding  Russian,  influence  in  Afghanistan,  it 
surely  follows  that  the  only  practical  question  we  have  to  con- 
sider is  how  is  this  to  be  done  ?  Now,  there  are  two  ways  in 
which  you  may  endeavour  to  effect  this  object.  You  may 
seek  the  attainment  of  it  by  the  exercise  of  a  recognised  con- 
trol over  the  foreign  relations  of  the  Cabul  Ruler  by  means  of 
competent  British  representatives  or  agents  in  his  dominions. 
This  was  the  plan  first  tried  by  the  late  Government  of  India, 
and  which  led  to  the  Treaty  of  Gandamak.  So  long  as  that 
plan  was  possible,  we  were  anxious  not  to  weaken,  but  to 
strengthen,  the  Cabul  Power  ;  and  in  its  despatch  of  July,  1879, 
the  late  Government  of  India,  reviewing  the  terms  and  objects 
of  that  Treaty,  recorded  its  opinion  that,  so  long  as  the  Treaty 
was  loyally  observed  by  the  Ameer  of  Cabul,  the  annexation 
of  Candahar  would  not  only  be  unnecessary,  but  also  undesir- 
able. The  case,  however,  was  essentially  altered  by  the 
atrocious  massacre  of  our  Mission  to  Cabul,  which  defeated 
the  main  object  of  the  Treaty  of  Gandamak,  And,  my  Lords, 
I  do  not  deny  for  a  moment  that  this  is  an  event  which  I  recall, 
and  shall  always  recall,  with  the  keenest  affliction.  I  do  not 
think  that  even  his  nearest  relations  can  mourn  with  a  deeper 
grief  than  mine  the  dastardly  murder  of  my  dear  and  truly 
gallant  friend.  Sir  Louis  Cavagnari.  I  will  not  obtrude  upon 
this  House  my  great  private  sorrow  for  that  irreparable  loss. 
Apart,  however,  from  that  great  sorrow,  my  opinion  as  to  the 
propriety  of  the  course  we  pursued  by  acquiescing  in  the 
Ameer's  strongly  expressed,  and  apparently  sincere,  request 
for  the  support  of  a  British  Mission  at  his  Court  is  an  opinion 
entirely  unchanged  by  the  abominable  crime  with  which  it 
was  so  ill  requited.  But,  although  I  think  it  was  right,  and 
even  necessary,  in  the  interests  of  all  concerned,  to  make  that 
humane  experiment,  undeterred  by  the  risks  it  involved,  and 
of  which  we  were  not  unconscious,  I  admit,  my  Lords,  that 
the  experiment  has  failed.  That  being  the  case,  the  failure 
of  it  leaves  open  only  one  course  practically  conducive  to  the 


254  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

attainment  of  those  objects  which  all  responsible  statesmen 
have  hitherto  approved,  desired,  and  insisted  on  ;  and  this  is 
the  course  adopted  by  the  late  Government  in  reference  to 
Candahar.  For  if  you  cannot  have  moral  guarantees  for  the 
adequate  control  of  the  Cabul  Power,  then  you  must  have 
material  guarantees.  The  failure  of  the  Gandamak  Treaty 
has  proved  the  impossibility  of  moral  guarantees  ;  and  what 
will  be  your  material  guarantees  if  you  abandon  Candahar 
and  the  Kurram  headlands  ?  As  long  as  you  retain  possession 
of  these,  the  position  we  have  to  assert,  and  the  interest  we 
have  to  safeguard,  upon  our  Afghan  Frontier,  will  be  practically 
independent  of  the  good  or  ill  will  of  any  Cabul  Ruler.  My 
Lords,  the  possession  of  Candahar  and  the  surrounding  country, 
when  brought  into  railway  connection  with  the  Valley  of  the 
Indus,  will  give  us  in  Afghanistan  the  only  kind  of  influence 
which  it  is  now  possible  for  us  to  exercise  over  the  people  of 
that  country.  It  will  enable  us  to  compel  them,  when  neces- 
sary, to  keep  the  peace  ;  and  it  will  render  comparatively 
unimportant  to  us  the  conditions  of  their  relations  with  Russia. 
The  possession  of  Candahar  would  lay  open  the  whole  of 
Afghanistan  to  our  armies  in  case  of  need.  It  would  most 
effectually  secure  the  Empire's  only  vulnerable  frontier 
against  both  attack  and  intrigue  ;  and  it  would  open  the  means 
of  bringing  by  rail  all  the  trade  of  Central  Asia  to  Kurrachee 
on  the  one  hand  and  Calcutta  on  the  other.  I  beseech  Her 
Majesty's  Ministers — most  earnestly  I  beseech  them — not  to 
neglect  the  warning  given  them  by  General  Roberts,  or  the 
example  set  them  by  Russia,  in  reference  to  the  importance 
of  cultivating  their  trade  routes  between  India  and  Central 
Asia.  It  is  not  to  war,  but  to  commerce,  that  you  must  look 
for  the  extension  of  your  legitimate  influence  in  Asia.  And, 
my  Lords,  pray  remember  that  the  loss  of  legitimate  influence 
really  means  the  loss  of  peace,  the  loss  of  security,  the 
loss  of  freedom,  the  loss  of  all  that  renders  possible  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Indian  Empire.  And  then  there  is  another  point 
which  must  not  be  lost  sight  of.  The  question  of  Candahar 
does  not  stand  alone.  Beyond  Candahar  there  is  Herat, 
beyond  Herat  there  is  Merv.  Mj''  Lords,  Herat  is  a  position 
which  England  has  twice  fought  to  preserve  from  foreign 
domination.  It  has  been  called  the  Key  of  India ;  and 
Liberal  statesmen  have  at  all  times  attached  great  importance 


LYTTON  255 

to  it.  My  own  opinion  is  that  the  importance  of  Herat  is 
entirely  relative  ;  and  that  if  the  British  Power  were  firmly 
established  at  Candahar,  you  could  afford  to  regard  with 
indifference  what  happens  at  Herat.  For  you  would  then  be  in 
a  position  both  to  prevent  any  arrangements  about  Herat 
of  which  you  did  not  approve,  and  also  to  enforce  the  observ- 
ance of  arrangements  of  which  you  did  approve.  But 
do  not  flatter  yourselves  that  this  is  now  your  position.  You 
are  at  present  utterly  powerless  to  exercise  the  smallest  influ- 
ence over  the  destinies  of  Herat,  and  so  you  will  continue  to 
be  till  you  are  firmly  established  at  Candahar.  And  now  let 
us  see  what  are  the  objections  to  this  policy.  The  most 
practical  of  them  all  lies  in  the  assumption  that  the  annexation 
of  Candahar  will  be  expensive.  My  Lords,  this  is  a  very  debat- 
able proposition.  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  denied  or  affirmed 
with  any  degree  of  certainty ;  for  the  rude  phaenomena  of 
Afghan  rule  furnish  no  data  from  which  to  estimate  correctly 
the  probable  financial  results  of  British  administration.  I 
do  not  think  that  any  Indian  administrator  could  have 
possibly  predicted  before  the  annexation  of  the  Punjaub, 
whether  that  great  addition  to  Empire  would  most  increase  the 
expenses  or  the  revenues  of  the  Indian  Government.  Much  must 
necessarily  depend  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  province 
is  administered  ;  much  also  on  the  selection  of  the  man  to 
whom  the  administration  of  it  is  first  entrusted.  The  opinion 
I  was  led  to  form,  as  Viceroy  of  India,  upon  the  best  information 
which  could  then  be  obtained,  is  that  Candahar,  if  judiciously 
administered,  will,  when  connected  by  rail  with  the  Valley 
of  the  Indus,  at  once  pay  its  expenses  ;  and  that,  in  a  short 
while,  it  will  pay  them  twice  over.  I  should  think  less  highly 
than  I  do  of  the  administrative  capacity  of  our  Indian  Services 
if  it  turned  out  otherwise  ;  but  I  admit  that  this  is  only  a 
personal  anticipation — a  guess,  if  you  will.  Let  us  assume  it 
to  be  over-sanguine — what  then  ?  My  Lords,  national 
security,  and  that  permanent  immunity  from  external  danger 
which  is  the  essential  condition  of  national  security,  are 
blessings  not  to  be  enjoyed  without  paying  the  full  price 
for  them.  The  possession  of  Empire  must  always  be  an 
expensive  privilege.  But  the  loss  of  Empire  may  be  a  ruinous 
disgrace  ;  and  the  safety  of  India  is  worth  more  than  a  few 
pieces  of  silver.     We  cannot  haggle  with  destiny.     I  feel  not 


256  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

a  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  any  resettlement  of  the  North-West 
Frontier  of  India,  which  leaves  that  frontier  exposed  to  a 
recurrence  of  the  dangers  that  gave  rise  to  the  Afghan  War 
will  inflict,  and  at  no  distant  date,  upon  the  Government  of 
India  far  heavier  financial  burdens  than  any  which  can  be 
incurred  on  account  of  the  administration  of  Candahar.  The 
importance  of  this  general  consideration  cannot,  I  think,  be 
more  forcibly  pointed  out  than  it  was,  some  years  ago,  by 
the  noble  Earl  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs 
(Lord  Granville).  In  1869  he  explained  that  what  Her 
Majesty's  Government  had  then  to  guard  against,  even  at  the 
cost  of  war  for  the  purpose,  was  not  then,  any  more  than 
it  is  now,  the  bugbear  of  an  imminent  armed  invasion  of 
India  by  Russia,  but  the  constantly  disturbing  and 
unsetthng  effect,  all  along  our  frontier,  of  the  subtle  exten- 
sion of  Russian  influence  and  intrigue  even  from  a  point  so 
comparatively  distant  as  Herat.  The  noble  Earl  then  said, 
and  said  most  truly,  that  by  this  means  Russia,  without 
moving  a  soldier,  could  paralyse  the  finances  of  India.  And 
I  must  ask  your  Lordships  to  observe  how  infinitely  greater 
would  be  the  danger,  then  pointed  out  by  the  noble  Earl,  if 
Russian  influence  and  intrigue  were  extended,  not  merely 
from  Herat,  but  from  Cabul  on  the  one  side  and  Candahar  on 
the  other,  whilst  British  influence  had  no  extension  beyond 
Peshawur.  Putting  aside,  therefore,  this  debatable  question 
of  expense,  on  which  we  have  no  adequate  data  for  practical 
argument,  I  come  to  what  may  be  called  the  moral  objections. 
We  are  told  that  annexation  is  very  immoral ;  and  that  we 
have  no  right  to  annex  Candahar  unless  the  Candaharis 
specially  request  us  to  be  so  good  as  to  do  so,  or  unless,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  commit  some  abominable  crime,  for  which 
their  conquest  is  the  only  fitting  punishment.  This  objection 
was  mentioned  by  the  noble  Marquess  who  is  now  Secretary 
of  State  for  India  (the  Marquess  of  Hartington)  in  reply  to  a 
deputation  urging  him  not  to  relinquish  Candahar.  But  the 
noble  Marquess  is  a  statesman  whose  mind  is  not  swayed  by 
impulsive  sentiment ;  and  I  earnestly  hope  that  the  noble 
Marquess  will  not  allow  his  calm  and  manly  judgment  to  be 
confused  by  a  mere  word.  What  is  conquest  ?  It  has  many 
different  meanings.  It  may  mean  such  an  operation  as  the 
conquests  of  Attila — massacre,  confiscation,  the  sack  of  cities. 


LYTTON  257 

the  sale  of  their  inhabitants  into  slavery  ;  and  this  is  probably 
the  greatest  of  all  evils.  It  may  mean  such  an  operation  as 
the  conquests  of  some  Mohammedan  princes  ;  the  imposition 
of  a  grinding  tribute,  the  degradation  of  a  national  religion, 
the  violation  of  national  traditions,  and  the  outrage  of  national 
sentiment.  This  also  is  a  great  calamity  for  the  conquered. 
But  when  it  means  only  that  good  government  is  to  be  sub- 
stituted for  anarchy,  that  security  of  life  and  property  is  to 
supersede  robbery  and  murder,  and  that  a  few  English  officials, 
with  a  limited  number  of  English  troops,  who  all  pay  for  every- 
thing they  get,  are  to  replace  lawless  Sirdars,  who,  owning  a 
doubtful  allegiance  to  a  distant  and  aliendespot,  are  in  the  habit 
of  taking  whatever  they  want  without  paying  for  it  at  all — 
then,  my  Lords,  I  really  cannot  see  that  conquest  is  a  terrible 
thing,  although  you  may  please  to  give  it  a  terrible  name. 
The  British  Power,  if  extended  in  Candahar,  would  interfere 
with  no  man's  religion.  It  would  bring  much  money  into  the 
country,  and,  so  far  from  augmenting,  it  would  greatly  diminish 
the  burden  of  taxation  by  increasing  the  wealth  of  the  popula- 
tion. Under  British  rule  the  Candaharis  would  quickly  learn, 
as  others  have  learnt  before  them,  that  law  and  order  mean 
wealth ;  and  there  are  no  people  in  the  world  so  greedy  of 
wealth  as  the  Afghans.  As  to  national  sentiments  and  tradi- 
tions, British  rule  would  not  disturb  them,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  they  do  not  exist.  To  suppose  that  the  Candaharis  have 
any  sorty  of  loyalty  to  Cabul,  or  any  liking  for  the  rule  of  a 
Cabul  Ameer,  is  to  evince  complete  ignorance  of  their  history 
and  way  of  life.  If  ever  there  was  a  merely  geographical 
entity,  it  is  Afghanistan.  It  is  as  idle  to  talk  of  the  national 
sentiments  of  the  Afghans  as  it  would  be  to  talk  of  the  cor- 
porate feeling  of  the  parish  of  Marylebone,  or  to  suppose  that 
because  Westminster  and  Athens  are  both  of  them  cities, 
therefore  the  City  of  Westminster  is  regarded  by  its  inhabit- 
ants with  feelings  like  those  with  which  Athens  inspired  the 
Athenians.  My  Lords,  if  any  man  was  competent  to  judge 
of  the  normal  natural  condition  of  Afghanistan,  that  man  was 
surely  Lord  Lawrence.  Well,  this  is  what  Lord  Lawrence 
wrote  of  it  in  1868 — 

It  appears  to  me  that  it  will  always  be  found  exceedingly  difficult, 
for  any  extended  period,  to  maintain  a  united  and  strong  government 
in  Afghanistan.     The  genius  of  the  chiefs  and  people,  as  evinced  in 
17— (2171) 


258  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  independent  Pathan  communities  of  the  Border,  is  evidence  to  this 
effect.  A  chief  may  now  and  then  arise  who  may  for  a  time  unite  the 
different  provinces  under  one  rule  ;  but  when  he  has  passed  away, 
the  tendency  again  will  be  to  separation.  With  the  single  exception 
of  the  pressure  of  a  common  enemy,  and  even  this  circumstance  will 
not  avail,  there  appear  to  be  no  ties  to  bind  the  Afghans  together. 

My  Lords,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  people  of  Candahar 
would  regard  themselves  as  humiliated  in  the  smallest  degree 
by  annexation  to  British  India.  I  am  confident  that  such 
annexation  would  be  of  immense  and  permanent  benefit  to 
them ;  and  I  am  disposed  to  doubt  rather  whether  they 
deserve  such  a  favour  than  whether  they  have  merited  such  a 
punishment.  Of  any  policy,  however,  which  involves  annexa- 
tion, it  may  justly  be  asked,  What  is  to  be  the  practical  hmit 
of  it  ?  How  far  wiU  you  go  with  such  a  policy  ?  How  far 
can  you  go  ?  "  Are  we,"  it  may  be  said,  "  to  go  on  conquering 
and  annexing  one  barbarous  wilderness  after  another,  till  we 
reach,  at  last,  the  Dardanelles  in  one  direction,  and  the  boun- 
daries of  Russian  Turkestan  in  another  ?  "  If  not,  where  will 
you  stop  ?  Where  wiU  you  draw  the  line  ?  My  Lords,  I 
think  it  is  very  right  to  ask  and  very  necessary  to  answer 
these  questions.  I  do  not  underrate,  and  to  a  great  extent  I 
share,  the  sentiment  with  which,  by  so  many  of  our  countrymen, 
war  and  conquest  are  regarded  in  the  light  of  pubUc  crimes. 
I  will  yield  to  no  man  in  the  condemnation  of  wars  undertaken 
for  no  better  object  than  the  gratification  of  personal  ambi- 
tion, the  indulgence  of  national  vanity,  or  the  provision 
of  active  service  for  an  army.  But  I  must  observe  that  no 
one  can  denounce  war  and  conquest  in  the  absolute  unmeasured 
terms  so  frequently  employed  for  that  purpose  without 
denouncing,  at  the  same  time,  one  of  the  most  potent  agents  of 
civilisation.  The  greater  part  of  Europe  consists  of  fragments 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  an  Empire  created  by  wars  which 
rendered  possible  the  diffusion  of  Christianity  and  the  develop- 
ment of  law.  The  whole  of  America,  north  and  south,  has  been 
conquered  from  its  original  owners,  who  were  savages,  chiefly 
by  Englishmen  and  Spaniards.  The  enormous  Russian 
Empire  has  been  formed  by  a  series  of  obscure  wars  waged 
against  barbarians  impenetrable  to  any  other  civilising  pro- 
cess ;  and  the  whole  fabric  of  the  British  Empire  in  India  is 
an  additional  illustration  of  the  same  thing.  Upon  those, 
therefore,  who  have    condemned  my  Asiatic  policy  solely  on 


LYTTON  259 

the  ground  that,  in  one  form  or  another,  it  involves  conquest, 
I  am  entitled,  I  think,  to  retort  their  own  questions.  Where, 
I  ask,  do  they  draw  the  line  ?  Can  they  justify  our  present 
possession  of  the  Peshawur  Valley  ?  Have  we  any  right  to 
Lahore  ?  What  is  our  title  to  Delhi,  to  Allahabad,  to  Benares, 
to  Calcutta  ?  My  Lords,  I  believe  that  the  most  consistent 
and  candid  of  my  critics  would  answer  all  these  questions 
plainly  and  directly  enough.  They  would  say,  and,  indeed, 
some  of  them  have  said,  that  we  have  no  business  in  India  at  all. 
It  was  by  crime  that  we  acquired  our  power  in  India.  The  only 
justification  for  its  maintenance  is  that  its  downfall  would  be 
injurious  to  the  natives  ;  and  the  only  attitude  that  befits  us 
in  that  country  is  one  of  penitence  for  the  sins  of  our  fore- 
fathers, with  an  anxious  desire  to  expiate,  if  possible,  their 
fault.  But,  surely  the  first  remark  suggested  by  this  view  of 
the  case  is,  that  those  who  hold  it  are,  for  that  very  reason, 
disqualified  to  form  a  trustworthy  opinion  on  the  policy  best 
calculated  to  maintain  and  uphold  the  Empire  of  British  India. 
No  one  should  try  to  administer  an  institution  of  which  he 
entirely  disapproves.  The  man  who  does  not  value  life  and 
health  ought  not  to  practise  as  a  physician  ;  and  a  man  who 
condemns  the  Indian  Empire  in  principle  is  disqualified  to 
judge  of  the  measures  necessary  for  its  defence  and  security. 
I  shaU  not  attempt  to  refute  these  views  ;  but  I  cannot  pass 
them  by  without  a  few  words  of  energetic  contradiction. 
Whatever  may  be  said  by  those  who  maintain  them,  I  cannot 
believe,  and  I  do  not  think  the  English  nation  will  believe, 
that  an  Empire  can  have  been  founded  on  robbery  and  fraud, 
when  we  are  also  told  in  the  same  breath  by  those  who  make 
this  assertion  that  the  Empire,  thus  founded,  must,  neverthe- 
less, be  maintained,  because  its  fall  would  involve  200,000,000 
people  in  anarchy  and  bloodshed,  and  relegate  them  to  the 
barbarism  from  which  they  are  slowly  emerging.  Grapes  do 
not  grow  on  thorns,  nor  figs  on  thistles  ;  and  it  is  surely  not 
under  the  protection  of  thieves  and  robbers  that  men  sit 
beneath  their  own  vines  and  fig-trees  in  undisturbed  enjoyment 
of  the  peaceful  fruits  of  honest  labour. 

My  Lords,  if  I  seem  to  have  been  asserting  truisms  I  am 
sorry  for  it  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  alleged  moral  obliga- 
tion to  retire  from  Candahar  cannot  be  stated  in  any  terms 
which  do  not  imply  the  proposition  that  we  ought  to  retire 


260  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

from  India  altogether.  And,  therefore,  to  the  question, 
"  How  far  would  you  go,  and  where  would  you  draw  the  line  ?  " 
I  reply,  without  hesitation,  that,  for  the  present,  I  would  go 
as  far  as  Candahar  ;  and  there  I  would  draw  the  line.  Because 
I  am  convinced  that,  if  the  line  be  promptly  drawn  there, 
and,  when  drawn,  firmly  maintained,  then  you  may  look  upon 
the  permanent  security  of  the  North-West  Frontier  of  India 
as  a  question  practically  closed — I  will  not  say  for  ever,  because 
no  such  question  can  be  closed  for  ever  ;  but  closed,  at  least, 
for  a  period  of  time  so  long  that  the  present  generation  need 
no  longer  be  practically  concerned  about  it.  And  now,  my 
Lords,  I  am  at  the  end  of  what  I  had  to  say  about  this  great 
question.  The  sum  and  substance  of  it  all  is  this.  No  Afghan 
Government  ever  has  been,  or  ever  can  be,  or  ever  will  be 
stable,  unless  it  submits  to  the  direct  influence  either  of  Eng- 
land or  of  Russia.  Shere  Ali  recognised  this  essential  condi- 
tion of  his  own  power  ;  and  when,  unfortunately,  the  British 
Government,  in  1873,  failed  to  respond  to  his  recognition  of 
it  in  our  own  favour,  he,  naturally,  turned  to  Russia,  and 
leant  on  her  for  advice  and  support.  Russia  then,  no  less 
naturally,  utilised  to  her  own  interests  the  opportunities  thus 
placed  under  her  hand.  And,  when  her  European  relations 
with  us  became  strained,  she  invited  the  Ameer  to  a  course 
of  conduct  which  ultimately  placed  him  in  a  position  towards 
us  not  to  be  tolerated  by  the  British  Power  without  discredit 
to  its  own  character,  and  danger  to  its  own  interests  in  India. 
Hence  the  Afghan  War.  That  war  has  now  placed  it  in  your 
power  to  prevent,  for  a  generation  at  least,  any  recurrence 
of  the  dangers  that  gave  rise  to  it.  But,  if  you  reject  the 
successful  results  of  that  war,  if  you  restore  Candahar  and  the 
Kurram  headlands  to  the  Cabul  Power,  or  otherwise  abandon 
the  positions  you  now  hold  there — in  short,  if  you  look  upon 
the  Afghan  War  as  a  mere  blunder,  which  has  bequeathed 
to  you  no  permanent  benefits,  nor  any  other  duty  than  that  of 
precipitate  retreat  and  penitential  reversion  to  the  previous 
state  of  things,  then,  my  Lords,  I  predict — and  I  predict  it 
with  a  feeling  akin  to  despair — that,  before  long,  you  will  be 
obliged  to  go  back  to  Candahar  under  conditions  of  greatly 
aggravated  difficulty  and  danger ;  or  else,  that  you  will  have 
to  make  your  final  choice  between  holding  India  as  tenants-at- 
will  to  Russia,  and  fortifying  her  frontier  behind  the  mountains 


LYTTON  261 

at  a  vast  expense,  upon  a  scale  fitted  for  its  protection, 
not  merely  against  mountain  tribes,  but  against  the  organised 
military  power  of  a  great  European  rival,  supported  by  their 
co-operation,  and  encouraged  by  the  shaken  confidence  of 
your  own  subjects  in  your  ability  and  determination  to  resist 
its  advances.  Having  said  this,  I  have  now  no  more  to  say. 
The  subject  is  a  great  one.  It  demands  a  great  decision.  But 
I  leave  it  with  confidence  in  the  hands  of  your  Lordships, 
feeling,  as  I  do,  that  in  all  its  bearings  and  in  all  its  aspects, 
it  most  vitally  concerns  the  safety,  honour,  and  welfare  of  our 
Sovereign  and  her  dominions. 


LORD  SALISBURY 

Lord  Salisbury  was  well  known  as  a  debater  in  the  House  of 
Commons  before  he  became  a  Peer.  His  incisive  and  sarcastic 
style  was  not  at  first  altogether  agreeable  to  the  House.  It 
has  been  observed  that  successful  speakers  have,  almost 
without  exception,  learned  their  business  at  the  expense  of 
their  audience.  Lord  Salisbury,  when  he  was  Lord  Robert 
Cecil,  cultivated  an  acerbity  which  he  did  not  feel,  and  acquired 
a  habit  of  monotonous,  unrelieved  irony  which,  though  it  was 
often  amusing,  lost  its  effect  by  repetition.  It  was  not  until 
he  first  took  office  as  Secretary  of  State  for  India,  being  then 
known  as  Lord  Cranborne,  that  he  enlarged  his  scope,  and  gave 
full  play  to  the  versatility  of  his  intellect.  From  that  time 
he  became  a  real  power  in  political  controversy,  trenchant  and 
forcible,  logical  and  clear.  He  was  very  soon  removed  to  the 
House  of  Lords,  where  he  found  himself  in  a  more  congenial 
atmosphere.  But  it  was  not  enough  for  him,  and  he  gradually 
developed  on  the  platform  a  capacity  for  broad,  general  criti- 
cism and  exposition  which  he  had  never  before  enjoyed  a  full 
opportunity  of  displaying.  Not  many  orators  have  been  better 
able  to  think  on  their  legs.  His  indiscretions  were  numerous. 
At  the  same  time  he  contrived  to  escape  their  consequences 
by  the  dexterity  with  which  he  disposed  of  intricate  and  com- 
plicated problems.  His  treatment  of  subjects  was  so  lucid 
that  he  seemed  sometimes  to  be  only  stating  facts  when  he  was 
really  drawing  conclusions,  and  his  arguments  were  so  skilfully 
constructed  that  they  appeared  to  proceed  inevitably  from 
premisses  which  had  not  been  assumed.  Lord  Salisbury  never 
talked  at  large  when  he  addressed  a  public  meeting.  He  led 
up  to  his  goal  by  a  series  of  orderly  steps,  though  he  took  care 
to  relieve  the  journey  by  occasional  digressions.  Few  speakers 
have  better  understood  the   art  of  drawing  an  inference  by 

262 


SALISBURY  263 

means  of  an  illustration.  This  speech  at  Newport  was  deli- 
vered in  critical  and  peculiar  circumstances.  Lord  Salisbury 
became  Prime  Minister  for  the  first  time  after  the  defeat  of 
Mr.  Gladstone's  Government  in  June,  1885.  The  passing 
of  the  County  Franchise  Act  and  of  the  Redistribution  Act 
had  made  a  General  Election  in  the  autumn  necessary.  The 
speech  was  therefore  regarded  as  in  the  nature  of  a  political 
manifesto.  For  that  purpose  it  is  singularly  adroit.  Lord 
Salisbury  explains  his  reasons  for  allowing  the  Irish  Coercion 
Act  to  lapse  with  extraordinary  skill,  and  his  reference  to 
Home  Rule,  while  committing  him  to  nothing,  contained  no 
language  which  could  be  considered  by  Irish  Nationalists  as 
irritating  or  offensive. 

Speech  at  Newport  in  Monmouthshire 

October  8,   1885 

The  Marquis  of  Salisbury  :  Ladies  and  Gentlemen, — I 
thank  you  very  heartily  for  this  reception,  given  by  so  imposing 
and  magnificent  a  meeting,  which,  in  one  sense,  I  am  most 
rejoiced  to  see  as  indicating  the  strength  of  the  Conservative 
feeling  in  this  part  of  the  country.  But  in  another  sense  it  fills 
me  with  apprehension  lest  I  should  not  be  able  to  convey  to 
all  who  sit  here  the  observations  which  I  desire  to  submit 
to  them.  It  has  already  been  brought  to  your  notice  that  our 
advent  to  office  was  unexpected,  was  the  result  of  an  action 
on  the  part  of  our  opponents  which  we  had  no  cause  to  antici- 
pate, and  that  we  took  office  under  many  and  great  disadvan- 
tages. No  one,  who  is  at  all  conversant  with  party  tactics, 
would  doubt  for  a  moment  that  it  was  a  great  misfortune  to 
us  that  we  were  obliged  to  fight  upon  a  financial  proposal 
which  we  thought  radically  unsound,  and  that  the  result  of 
the  battle  was  that  our  opponents  retired  from  office  ;  and 
now  that  our  official  career  has  lasted  a  short  time  I  pray  you 
to  notice  the  kind  of  criticism  with  which  it  is  received  by  our 
opponents.  They  do  not  say  that  we  have  gone  wrong.  What 
they  say,  and  it  seems  to  them  the  bitterest  reproach  they  can 
address  to  us,  is  that  we  have  done  like  themselves.  Do  not 
understand  me  to  admit  the  fact.     I  only  say  that  that  is 


FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

what  they  assert.  They  do  not  reproach  us  with  it  on  the 
ground  of  poUcy,  though,  of  course,  they  maintain  their  own 
poHcy  ;  but  they  maintain  that  we  are  guilty  of  some  great 
immorahty  in  acting  contrary  to  the  professions  that  we  have 
made.  Some  orators  described  our  conduct  as  slavish,  others 
called  it  submissive.  Lord  Hartington  says  we  have  been 
guilty  of  gross  political  immorahty — ^he,  that  great  maintainer 
of  principle,  who  never  yielded  to  opinion  in  his  Ufe.  Mr. 
Chamberlain  reproaches  us  in  language  so  categorical  that  I 
will  quote  it.     Mr.  Chamberlain  says  — 

What  is  the  complaint  that  I  have  to  make  against  the  present 
Government  ?  It  is  that  they  are  acting  and  speaking  in  ofl&ce  in 
absolute  contradiction  to  all  that  they  said  and  did  in  Opposition. 

And  he  then  proceeds  to  single  me  out  specially.  As  he  has 
singled  me  out,  I  will  speak  for  myself.  I  will  say  that  this 
is  a  baseless  libel — that  it  has  not  a  shred  or  shadow  of  truth, 
and  that  I  defy  him  to  point  out  the  language  I  used  in  Opposi- 
tion or  in  office  which  I  am  contradicting  by  my  deeds.  That 
is  a  simple  test.  If  he  can  prove  it,  he  confutes  me  ;  if  he 
cannot  prove  it,  the  reproach  which  he  makes  recoils  upon  him- 
self and  covers  with  the  charge  of  dishonesty  the  tactics  he 
pursues.  (A  Voice  :  "  Like  his  affidavits.")  Unfortunately, 
he  is  not  strong  in  the  affidavits  ;  at  least,  he  is  not  strong  in 
the  affidavits  that  are  of  any  value.  The  affidavits  he  has  to 
use  his  friends  are  obliged  to  purchase.  Let  me  take  foreign 
politics  for  my  illustration.  You  will  allow  me  to  say,  in 
touching  upon  foreign  politics,  that  though  I  can  speak  to  you 
in  perfect  freedom  of  home  politics,  you  will  understand, 
in  the  particular  office  I  have  the  honour  to  fill,  it  is  not  in 
my  power  to  speak  with  absolute  freedom  when  I  am  touching 
upon  foreign  affairs.  One  of  these  foreign  slavish  and  sub- 
missive things  we  have  done  is  that  we  concluded  a  loan  for 
Egypt  which  the  late  Government  had  undertaken  to  conclude, 
but  which  they  were  unable  to  issue.  They  obtained  a  con- 
vention on  which  a  loan  was  grounded  ;  they  maintained  that 
the  loan  was  absolutely  necessary  in  pursuance  of  their 
Egyptian  policy  ;  but  somehow,  when  it  came  to  the  test,  they 
were  not  able  to  raise  the  loan,  and  we  found  the  matter  in  a 
state  of  absolute  deadlock.  Then,  again,  they  were  pursuing 
certain  negotiations  with  respect  to  Afghanistan.  These 
negotiations  were  going  on.     We  continued  them  to  a  successful 


SALISBURY  265 

conclusion.  What  do  they  mean  when  they  say  that  this  is 
slavish  and  submissive  conduct  ?  Do  they  mean  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  statesmen  who  succeed  to  office  to  be  false  to  the 
engagements  which  their  predecessors  have  made,  and  to 
disappoint  the  expectations  which  their  predecessors  have 
raised  ?  If  this  is  their  view  of  public  duty,  I  do  not  dispute 
that  probably  they  would  do  so  if  they  had  the  chance.  But 
that  has  never  been  our  view  of  public  duty.  You  will 
search  in  vain  through  the  speeches  of  members  of  the  Opposi- 
tion for  any  indications  that  the  thought  of  such  disloyalty 
to  those  with  whom  England  was  dealing  ever  entered  into  our 
conception  as  part  of  the  duty  of  British  statesmen.  Then  I 
see  that  I  am  bitterly  reproached  because  a  rising  has  taken 
place  in  Eastern  Roumelia  which  is  contrary  to  one  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin.  One  of  my  opponents, 
Mr.  Shaw-Lefevre,  said,  in  a  tone  of  loud  triumph,  "  Whatever 
happens,  you  may  see  that  the  present  Government  will  not 
venture  to  use  a  single  English  soldier  in  order  to  repress  this 
rising."  When,  I  should  like  to  know,  was  it  the  practice  of 
English  statesmen  of  either  party  to  use  the  military  force  of 
this  country  to  settle  disputes  that  have  arisen  in  the  internal 
affairs  of  other  nations  ?  It  is  one  of  the  first  principles  of 
English  policy  that  if  subjects  rise  against  their  rulers,  or 
rulers  are  severe  towards  their  subjects,  we  may  express  our 
opinion,  but  we  do  not  interfere  by  acts.  But  in  this  case  I 
deny  that  the  policy  of  the  Berlin  Treaty  has  been  frustrated. 
In  the  first  place,  what  has  taken  place  has  not  restored  what 
was  called  the  "  Big  Bulgaria  "  of  the  San  Stefan o  Treaty.  That 
was  a  very  different  affair,  and  it  was  the  destruction  of  the 
"  Big  Bulgaria  "  of  the  San  Stefano  Treaty  that  was  part  of  the 
principal  business  of  the  ambassadors  who  assembled  at 
Berhn.  But  that  is  not  the  only  point.  Our  object  in  dealing 
with  those  new  nationalities  of  the  Balkan  was  that  they  should 
be  true  and  real  nationalities.  It  was  the  policy  of  Europe — 
it  was  the  inevitable  result  of  the  progress  of  events,  that  when 
there  was  a  homogeneous  Christian  population  subject  to  the 
rule  of  the  Porte,  the  homogeneous  Christian  population  would, 
by  its  own  progressive  tendencies,  by  its  own  innate  character, 
necessarily  before  long  free  itself  from  that  subjection,  and  it 
was  an  operation  of  that  kind  which  the  Berlin  Treaty  sanc- 
tioned.    But  it  was  essential  that  the  nations  which  grew  up 


266  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

should  represent  the  real  character,  and  grow  by  the  natural 
laws  of  the  community  to  which  they  belong,  I  must  speak 
with  all  courtesy,  and  I  am  anxious  that  not  a  word  that  can 
give  offence  should  escape  my  lips,  but  remember  that  when  the 
Berlin  Treaty  was  signed  these  provinces  were  occupied  by  a 
conquering  army.  Also  remember  that  if  Eastern  Roumelia 
had  then  been  handed  over  to  Bulgaria  to  form  part  of  a 
united  state,  its  future  political  growth  would  not  have  been 
that  which  the  character  and  history  of  the  inhabitants  would 
necessarily  and  naturally  cause.  It  would  have  been  that 
which  would  arise  from  the  position  of  a  conquering  army 
which  was  still  bivouacked  in  its  midst.  That  conquering 
army  has  retired  ;  seven  years  have  passed  away  ;  a  separate, 
distinct,  and  genuine  national  character  has  been  formed  ; 
and  although  I  do  not  deny  that  I  think  it  would  have  been 
more  fortunate  for  Europe  and  for  the  Eastern  Roumelians 
themselves  that  this  event  should  not  have  happened,  still  I 
utterly  deny  that  the  provisions  of  the  Berlin  Treaty  have 
been  destitute  of  the  highest  beneficent  effects.  I  say  that  if 
these  two  Bulgarias  are,  in  the  future,  to  develop  the  strength, 
character,  and  idiosjnicrasy  of  a  nation,  it  will  be  due  to  the 
care  which  Europe  exercises  over  their  cradle,  and  I  may  also 
say  that  it  is  not  absolutely  without  precedent  in  the  history 
of  treaties  that  after  a  few  years  some  modification  should  take 
place  in  their  provisions.  I  remember  the  Treaty  of  Paris, 
which  provided  for  the  separation  of  the  two  Roumanias  ; 
but  I  think  before  the  Treaty  of  Paris  had  been  signed  two 
years,  they  were  united.  Again,  the  Treaty  of  Vienna  pro- 
vided for  the  union  of  the  Netherlands  and  Belgium  ;  but 
before  fifteen  years  had  elapsed  they  were  separated.  Treaties 
do  not  affect  to  overrule  the  general  impulses  of  populations. 
What  they  do  affect  is  to  protect  those  impulses  against  control 
by  force,  by  armies  which  may  be  able  to  give  a  dangerous  turn 
to  the  natural  development  of  the  people  over  whom,  for  the 
moment,  they  chance  to  rule.  Our  policy,  I  need  not  tell  you, 
is  to  uphold  the  Turkish  Empire  whenever  it  can  be  genuinely 
and  healthily  upheld  ;  but  whenever  its  rule  is  proved  by  events 
to  be  inconsistent  with  the  welfare  of  populations,  then  to 
strive  to  cherish  and  foster  strong  self-sustaining  nationalities 
who  shall  make  a  genuine  and  important  contribution  to  the 
future  freedom  and  independence  of  Europe.     For  the  moment. 


SALISBURY  267 

I  hope  that  the  Great  Powers  are  agreed  that  trouble  and  dis- 
turbance ought  to  go  no  further,  and  that  their  influence  will 
be  sufficient  to  confine  within  the  narrowest  possible  sphere 
the  modification  in  the  existing  state  of  things  which  the 
impulse  of  the  population  has  produced.  Our  object,  above 
all  things,  is  peace  ;  because,  if  peace  is  broken,  you  can  never 
be  certain  when  armies  are  once  in  the  field,  what  the  results 
of  their  efforts  will  lead  to,  and  whether  the  results  will  be 
favourable  to  national  growth  or  industrial  independence, 
and  you  never  can  be  certain  that  the  fate  of  small  nations  may 
not  be  sacrificed  by  the  exigencies  which  military  events  may 
enable  larger  nations  to  require. 

Turning  from  foreign  politics,  I  again  must  call  your  atten- 
tion, before  sa3dng  anything  of  the  problems  that  lie  before 
us,  to  the  peculiar  mode  in  which  our  opinions  are  dealt 
with  by  our  opponents.  Their  plan  is  this — first,  to  sketch 
out  to  you  in  brilliant  and  imaginative  colours,  what  they 
think  the  Conservative  policy  is.  They  prove  to  you  what 
ought  to  be  the  Conservative  policy,  and  then  it  naturally 
turns  out  that  they  know  nothing  about  the  matter,  and 
if  the  Conservatives  take  a  very  different  view,  they  declare 
that  they  are  the  basest  of  mankind  and  abandon  their 
own  ideas  for  the  sake  of  the  sweets  of  office.  Conservatives 
alone  should  be  the  exponents  of  Conservative  opinion.  I 
do  not  know  an5rthing  so  comical  as  a  Radical  trying  to  point 
out  what  a  Conservative  should  be.  Now,  one  of  the  subjects 
which,  by  common  consent,  must  occupy  the  attention  of  the 
future  ParHament  is  one  which  our  adversaries  would  persuade 
you  that  they  only  have  the  right  to  touch — I  mean  the  sub- 
ject of  local  government.  Even  Mr.  Gladstone,  in  the  long 
and  dreary  epistle  which  he,  like  an  Emperor  of  old,  wrote 
from  his  retirement,  even  Mr.  Gladstone  is  disposed  to  deny 
us  the  right  of  entertaining  the  question  of  local  self-govern- 
ment. He  is  gracious  enough  to  admit  that  I  have  expressed  very 
strong  opinions  in  its  favour,  but  he  proceeds  to  point  out  that 
I  have  not  the  slightest  influence  over  the  opinions  of  my 
party,  and  that  my  influence  must  not  be  taken  as  any  proof 
of  what  they  really  would  think.  I  was  very  much  struck  by 
his  warning,  and  I  thought  it  better  to  provide  myself  with 
undoubted  credentials.  Therefore,  I  did  not  venture  to  address 
you  till  I  met  my  colleagues  in  the  Cabinet.  I  do  not  know 
whether  he  thinks  the  Cabinet  has  any  influence  over  the 


268  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

opinions  of  the  Conservative  party  ;  but  if  the  sixteen  gentle- 
men who  sit  in  the  Cabinet  are  to  be  expected  to  represent 
the  opinions  of  the  Conservative  party,  I  will  say  that,  without 
doubt  and  hesitation,  and  without  a  dissentient  voice,  they  are 
strongly  of  opinion  that  large  reforms  in  our  local  government 
are  necessary,  and  in  the  direction  of  increasing  powers  to  local 
government  are  absolutely  necessary.  Bear  in  mind  what 
true  reform  in  local  government  means.  I  quite  admit  that 
the  local  authority  should  be  popularly  elected.  But  it  does 
not  merely  mean  that.  You  have  not  got  at  what  you  want 
when  you  have  provided  for  the  proper  constitution  of  your 
local  authority.  You  must  provide  it  with  sufficient  power, 
and  add  to  this  power  by  diminishing  the  excessive  and  exag- 
gerated powers  which  have  been  heaped  upon  the  central 
authorities  in  London.  That  I  claim  to  be  a  special  Tory 
doctrine,  which  we  have  held  through  good  report  and  evil 
report  for  many  and  many  a  generation.  It  has  always  been 
our  contention  that  people  in  their  own  localities  should  govern 
themselves,  and  that  the  attempt  to  imitate  the  continental 
plan  by  throwing  every  authority  back  upon  the  central  power, 
though  it  might  produce  a  more  scientific  and  exact  and  more 
effective  administration  for  the  moment,  will,  when  tested,  be 
disastrous  to  all  good  government.  It  would  not  provide  a 
government  that  was  suited  to  the  feelings  and  idiosyncrasies 
of  a  number  of  communities,  and  it  would  not  teach  the  people 
to  take  that  active  interest  in  their  own  government  which  is 
the  only  training  that  makes  a  man  a  true  and  worthy  citizen. 
These  are  doctrines  that  we  have  held  for  a  very  long  time. 
We  urged  them — that  is  to  say,  our  fathers  urged  them,  perhaps 
with  undue  persistency,  and  they  opposed  on  that  account  the 
introduction  of  the  new  Poor  Law.  I  am  not  blaming  the 
new  Poor  Law.  It  was  a  necessary  reform,  in  order  to  meet 
tremendous  evils,  but  it  did  carry  with  it  that  spirit  of  central- 
isation which  has  sunk  deeply  into  our  organisation.  It  was 
opposed  at  the  time  by  the  Conservatives  earnestly  and 
strongly,  and  though  I  should  be  sorry  to  undo  the  beneficent 
action  which  may  fairly  be  attributed  to  the  new  Poor  Law, 
still  I  feel  that  the  education  of  the  country  is  so  far  advanced, 
the  number  of  men  taking  part  in  local  government  is  so  great, 
that  the  time  has  come  when  many  of  those  powers  now  given 
to  the  Local  Government  Board,  and  others  in  London,  ought 


SALISBURY  269 

to  be  given  to  the  local  authorities.  There  is  one  reform 
which  I  have  very  much  at  heart,  and  which  I  have  urged  so 
often  that  I  do  not  think  Mr.  Chamberlain  will  say  that  I  am 
trenching  upon  his  copyright  in  claiming  it.  It  is  that  all  men, 
in  proportion  to  their  ability,  should  contribute  to  the  expenses 
of  local  government.  As  you  know,  it  is  now  defrayed  by 
what  are  called  rates,  and  they  are  not  levied  upon  all 
men  according  to  the  amount  of  land  or  houses  they  may 
possess  ;  they  may  possess  very  large  resources  and  yet  escape 
altogether  contributing  to  the  administration  of  the  local 
government.  That  is  a  disadvantage  to  their  feUows.  It  is 
not  merely  an  injustice  to  them.  It  does  a  great  deal  of  harm. 
I  have  been  sitting  for  two  years  upon  a  Commission  in  respect 
to  the  housing  of  the  poor,  which  was  appointed  in  answer  to 
a  motion  which  I  moved  in  the  House  of  Lords.  I  have  a 
strong  feeling  that  the  unfair  incidence  of  rates  in  many  parts 
of  the  country  is  a  question  of  material  gravity.  I  saw  it 
stated  lately  in  a  Liberal  organ  that  in  some  counties — Essex, 
I  think — the  rates  had  reached  as  much  as  10s.  in  the  pound. 
That  is  not  a  very  common  experience  happily.  We  have 
heard  of  5s.  and  4s.  not  infrequently.  What  is  the  result 
of  this  ?  A  man  has  a  certain  amount  of  money  to  invest. 
He  says,  "  If  I  put  this  into  Consols,  I  shall  not  pay  any  taxes 
at  all ;  if  I  build  cottages  for  the  poor  I  shall  have  to  pay  half, 
or  a  quarter,  or  a  fifth  of  my  profits  into  the  local  exchequer." 
He  naturally  says,  "  I  would  rather  find  some  other  investment, 
one  more  profitable  than  this  most  unremunerative  one  of 
building  houses  for  the  poor."  Thus  there  is  put  a  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  a  most  urgent  reform.  You  place,  as  it  were,  a 
special  penalty  on  the  man  who  provides  houses  in  which  the 
poor  may  live,  and,  therefore,  I  hold  it  to  be  an  indispensable 
part  of  any  reform  of  your  local  government  that  it  should 
include  the  sanction  of  this  great  principle — that  aU  men  shall 
pay  according  to  their  ability.  Well,  then,  there  is  another 
question  in  which  I  think  local  government  may  do  something 
for  us  besides  those  sanitary  questions  and  those  matters 
connected  with  the  relief  of  the  poor  which  are  so  familiar  to 
you.  There  is  another  matter  of  which  you  know  something 
in  this  or  in  the  neighbouring  locality,  and  that  is  the  burning 
question  of  Sunday  closing.  Sunday  closing,  looked  at  from 
a  purely  impartial  point  of  view,  and  I  am  bound  to  say  that 


270  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

those  people  who  do  not  go  to  pubUc-houses  are  very  impartial 
in  the  matter — (laughter) — presents  these  difficulties — that 
though  in  Scotland  you  have  unanimity,  in  Ireland  practical 
unanimity,  and  in  Wales  you  have  unanimity  qualified  by  a 
certain  amount  of  recent  experience — (laughter) — and  I  am 
bound  to  admit  that  in  Cornwall  you  have  what  appears  to  be 
unanimity — yet  when  you  come  to  the  strictly  Teutonic  por- 
tion of  the  community,  you  have  anjrthing  but  unanimity. 
I  remember  the  present  Lord  Ebury,  when  Lord  Robert 
Grosvenor,  introducing  a  Bill  for  enforcing  strict  Sunday 
closing,  which  applied  to  eating  as  well  as  drinking  in  London  ; 
he  got  it  as  far  as  Committee,  but  the  moment  the  population 
of  London  heard  of  it  they  took  effective  measures  ;  they 
marched  into  Hyde  Park  and  broke  the  windows  of  every 
member  of  Parliament  they  could  find  ;  and  though  there  was 
not  a  logical  connection  between  the  remonstrance  and  the 
evil,  the  remonstrance  had  its  effect,  and  the  Bill  was  imme- 
diately withdrawn.  I  do  not  know  that  the  population  of 
London  has  since  changed  very  much,  and  my  impression  is 
that  if  you  tried  Sunday  closing  upon  them  you  wovdd  be  very 
tired  of  it  before  you  got  very  far.  Looking  upon  it  from  an 
impartial  point  of  view,  it  is  impossible  not  to  see  that  the 
difficulties  of  a  imiform  system  for  the  whole  country  are 
extreme,  and  if  we  were  not  afraid  of  running  against  some 
antiquated  doctrines  on  the  subject,  we  should  adopt  the 
simple  principle  of  letting  each  locality  decide  for  itself  what  it 
should  do  in  the  matter.  I  venture  to  say  that,  as  regards 
most  of  those  who  hear  me,  two  words  have  rushed  to  their 
minds.  They  have  said  "  He  is  professing  local  option."  The 
value  of  local  option  differs  exactly  according  to  the  value  of 
the  thing  about  which  the  local  option  is  to  take  place.  I  do 
not  think  local  option  is  a  bad  thing  where  that  matter  upon 
which  local  option  takes  place  is  legitimate  ;  but  where  local 
option  is  also  used  for  a  different  process,  I  have  no  kind  of 
sympathy  with  it.  It  is  proposed  that  localities  shall  have  the 
power  where  the  number  of  non-thirsty  souls  exceeds  the 
number  of  thirsty  souls,  that  the  non-thirsty  souls  shall  have 
the  power  of  saying  that  the  thirsty  souls  shall  have  nothing 
at  all  to  drink.  That  seems  to  be  trenching  on  the  elementary 
liberties  of  mankind.  If  I  like  to  drink  beer  it  is  no  reason  that 
I  should  be  prevented  from  taking  it  because  my  neighbour 


SALISBURY  271 

does  not  like  it.  If  you  sacrifice  liberty  in  the  matter  of 
alcohol  you  will  eventually  sacrifice  it  in  more  important 
matters  also,  and  those  advantages  of  civil  and  religious  liberty 
for  which  we  have  fought  hard,  wiU  gradually  be  whittled  away. 
I  should,  therefore,  be  inclined  to  trust  the  local  authority  with 
the  settlement  of  the  difiicult  question  of  Sunday  closing  ;  but 
always  on  one  condition,  that  they  should  not  be  intrusted  with 
the  permanent  settlement  of  it.  That  is  to  say  that  if,  after 
two  or  three  years'  interval,  they  did  not  like  what  they  had 
done,  they  should  be  at  liberty  to  retrace  their  steps.  I  do 
not  understand  any  permanent  views  in  this  matter.  Perhaps 
those  who  do  not  now  like  Sunday  closing  would  alter  their 
minds  after  some  experience,  but  I  think  the  local  authority 
should  have  power  to  alter  any  resolution  to  which  they  had 
come,  and,  for  myself,  I  should  be  prepared  to  go  a  step  further, 
and  give  the  local  authority  power  over  licences  to  the  extent 
which  the  magistrates  now  exercise.  I  see  no  reason  why 
they  should  exercise  it  less  wisely  and  liberally  than  the 
magistrates  and  I  cannot  blind  myself  to  the  fact  that  in  some 
districts  certain  opinions  have  gained  ground  upon  the  bench 
which  really  disqualify  magistrates  from  exercising  a  per- 
fectly satisfactory  judgment.  But  while  I  thus  differ  from  the 
opinion  of  some  I  much  respect,  it  is  necessary  to  make  this 
observation.  One  reason  why  the  local  authority  would  be 
a  good  authority  is,  that  if  any  encroachment  on  the  legitimate 
interest  and  industry  of  the  publican  is  made,  undoubtedly 
fair  compensation  must  be  given,  and  the  local  authority  would 
have  to  provide  that  fair  compensation,  and  I  believe  that  the 
terror  of  having  to  provide  that  compensation,  would  furnish 
a  not  inconsiderable  motive  to  induce  the  local  authority  to 
observe  a  wise  moderation  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions. 
You  will  probably  ask  me — "  How  far  do  you  feel  inclined  to 
make  this  extension  of  local  authority  general  ?  How  far, 
for  instance,  are  you  inclined  to  extend  it  to  Ireland  ?  "  This 
is  a  difficult  question,  I  admit.  Our  first  principle,  on  which 
we  have  always  gone,  is  to  extend  to  Ireland,  so  far  as  we  can, 
aU  the  institutions  in  this  country.  But  I  fuUy  recognise 
that  in  the  case  of  local  institutions  especially,  there  is  one 
element  of  consideration  which  in  the  state  of  Ireland,  you 
cannot  leave  out  of  mind.  Local  authorities  are  more  exposed 
to  the  temptation  of  enabling  the  majority  to  be  unjust  to  the 


272  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

minority  when  they  obtain  jurisdiction  over  a  small  area, 
than  is  the  case  when  the  authority  derives  its  sanction  and 
extends  its  jurisdiction  over  a  wider  area.  It  would  be  im- 
possible to  leave  out  of  sight,  in  the  extension  of  any  such  local 
authority  to  Ireland,  the  fact  that  the  population  is  on  several 
subjects  deeply  divided,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every 
Government  on  all  matters  of  essential  justice  to  protect  the 
minority  against  the  majority. 

With  respect  to  the  larger  organic  questions  connected 
with  Ireland,  I  cannot  say  much,  though  I  can  speak  em- 
phatically. I  have  nothing  to  say,  but  that  the  traditions 
of  the  party  to  which  we  belong  are  on  this  subject  clear 
and  distinct,  and  you  may  rely  upon  it  that  our  party  will 
not  depart  from  them.  We  look  upon  the  integrity  of  the 
Empire  as  a  matter  more  important  than  almost  any 
other  political  consideration  that  you  can  imagine,  and  we 
could  not  regard  with  favour  any  proposal  which  directly  or 
indirectly  menaced  that  which  is  the  first  condition  of  Eng- 
land's position  among  the  nations  of  the  world.  If  I  had 
spoken  three  days  ago,  I  should  not  have  said  anything  more 
upon  Irish  matters  ;  but  I  observed  in  yesterday's  paper  a 
remarkable  speech  from  the  Irish  leader,  in  which  he  referred 
in  so  marked  a  way  to  the  position  of  Austria-Hungary  that  I 
gathered  that  his  words  were  intended  to  cover  some  kind  of 
a  new  proposal,  and  that  some  notion  of  Imperial  federation 
was  floating  in  his  mind.  In  speaking  of  Imperial  federation, 
as  entirely  apart  from  the  Irish  question,  I  wish  to  guard 
myself  very  carefully.  I  deem  it  to  be  one  of  the  questions 
of  the  future.  I  believe  the  drawing  nearer  of  the  colonies  to 
this  country  is  the  policy  to  which  all  EngHsh  patriots  must 
look  who  desire  to  give  effect  in  the  councils  of  the  world  to 
the  real  strength  of  the  English  nation.  We  desire  to  draw 
all  the  advantages  that  can  be  drawn  from  that  marvellous 
cluster  of  dependencies  which  our  Empire,  above  every  other 
Empire  of  ancient  or  modern  time  possesses.  Our  colonies 
are  bound  to  us  by  deep  affection,  and  we  should  be  guilty  not 
only  of  coolness  of  heart,  but  of  gross  and  palpable  foUy,  if 
we  allowed  that  sentiment  to  cool,  and  did  not  draw  such 
advantages  for  the  common  weal  of  the  English  as  circum- 
stances permitted  us  to  do.  I  know  that  the  idea  of  Imperial 
federation  is  still  shapeless  and  unformed,  and  it  is  impossible 
for  any  man  to  do  more  than  keep  his  mind  open,  with  the 


SALISBURY  273 

desire  to  give  effect  to  aspirations  which  bear  the  mark  of  the 
truest  patriotism  upon  them.  Therefore,  I  wish  to  avoid 
any  language  which  may  seem  to  discourage  a  plan  in  which 
the  fondest  hope  of  high  Imperial  greatness  for  England  in  the 
future  may  be  realised.  But  with  respect  to  Ireland,  I  am 
bound  to  say  that  I  have  never  seen  any  plan  or  any  suggestion 
which  gives  me  at  present  the  slightest  ground  for  anticipating 
that  it  is  in  that  direction  that  we  shall  find  any  substantial 
solution  of  the  difficulties  of  the  problem.  To  maintain  the 
imity  of  the  Empire  must,  undoubtedly,  be  our  first  policy 
with  regard  to  Ireland.  But  perhaps  you  will  say  that  there 
is  a  more  pressing  matter — that  the  elementary  conditions  of 
social  order  are  not  maintained ;  and  I  have  seen  plenty  of 
suggestions  that  the  Government  are  to  blame  for  this  because 
they  did  not  allow  the  Crimes  Act  to  be  renewed.  Are  you 
quite  certain,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Crimes  Act  would 
prevent  what  has  taken  place,  and  that,  in  the  second  place, 
it  was  in  our  power  to  renew  it  ?  Both  questions  require  to  be 
answered  in  the  affirmative  before  you  can  blame  the  Govern- 
ment. With  respect  to  our  power,  I  wiU  remind  you  of  this — 
you  had  passed  an  Act  of  Parliament,  giving,  in  unexampled 
abundance  and  with  unexampled  freedom,  supreme  power 
to  the  great  mass  of  the  Irish  people.  You  had  done  that ; 
you  were  at  the  close  of  the  Parliament  elected  on  the  system 
which  was  condemned ;  you  were  on  the  verge  of  the  election 
of  a  new  Parliament.  To  my  mind — and  that  opinion  was 
formed  long  before  the  change  of  Government  occurred — to 
my  mind  the  renewal  of  exceptional  legislation  against  a 
population  whom  you  had  treated  legislatively  with  this 
marked  confidence  was  so  gross  an  inconsistency  that  you 
could  not  possibly  hope,  during  the  few  remaining  months  at 
your  disposal  before  the  present  Parliament  had  expired,  even 
if  you  had  wished  it,  to  renew  any  legislation  which  expressed 
on  the  one  side  a  distrust  of  what,  on  the  other  side,  your  former 
legislation  had  so  strongly  emphasised.  The  only  result  would 
have  been  that  you  would  not  have  passed  the  Act,  but  would 
have  produced  by  the  inconsistency  of  your  position  so  intense 
an  exasperation  among  the  Irish  people  that  you  would  have 
caused  ten  times  more  evil,  ten  times  more  resistance  to  the 
law,  than  your  Crimes  Act  could  possibly  have  availed  to  check. 
The  effect  of  the  Crimes  Act  has  been  very  much  exaggerated. 

i8— (2171) 


274  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

While  it  was  in  existence  there  grew  up  a  thousand  branches 
of  the  National  League,  and  it  is  from  them  that  those  diffi- 
culties proceeded  with  which  you  have  now  to  contend.  The 
provisions  in  the  Crimes  Act  against  boycotting  were  of  very 
small  effect.  It  grew  up  under  that  Act,  because  it  is  a  crime 
which  legislation  has  a  very  great  difficulty  in  reaching.  I 
have  seen  it  stated  that  the  Crimes  Act  diminished  outrages, 
that  boycotting  acted  through  outrages,  and  that  the  Crimes 
Act  diminished  boycotting.  It  is  not  true  ;  the  Act  did  not 
diminish  outrages.  I  have  had  a  return  of  all  the  outrages 
in  September  during  which  the  Act  was  not  in  existence,  and 
outrages  were  considerably  fewer  than  in  August  when  the  Act 
was  still  in  existence.  Boycotting  was  the  act  of  persons 
proposing  to  do  things  which  in  themselves  are  legal,  and  which 
are  only  illegal  because  of  the  intention  with  which  they  are 
done.  I  will  give  you  an  instance  of  boycotting,  and  I  will 
leave  you  to  tell  me  whether  the  Crimes  Act  will  affect  it. 
Not  long  ago  a  boycotted  man  walked  into  a  Roman  Catholic 
church,  and  everyone  left  the  church  instead  of  sitting  still 
until  the  service  was  finished.  The  priest  said  :  "  I  will  go 
on  with  the  service  and  finish  it  for  you  alone,  but  I  would 
recommend  you  to  go  away."  What  is  the  use  of  an  Act  of 
Parhament  against  a  system  of  that  kind  ?  You  cannot 
indict  people  because  they  go  to  church  or  leave  church.  It  is 
more  like  the  excommunication  or  interdict  of  the  Middle 
Ages  than  anything  we  know  now.  As  far  as  boycotting  is 
liable  to  the  law,  as  far  as  legal  remedies  can  reach  it,  do  not 
imagine  that  the  Irish  Government  are  passive  or  quiet  in 
putting  the  remedies  of  the  ordinary  law  into  action.  At  the 
present  moment  there  are  thirty-five  prosecutions  for  boy- 
cotting, and  that  alone  will  show  you  that  the  Irish  Govern- 
ment are  doing  their  best  with  what  they  consider  a  difficult 
evil.  The  truth  about  boycotting  is  that  it  depends  upon  the 
passing  humour  of  the  population.  I  do  not  believe  that  in 
any  community  it  has  endured.  I  doubt  whether  in  any 
community  law  has  been  able  to  provide  a  satisfactory  remedy, 
but  I  beheve  it  contains  its  own  Nemesis.  It  presents  so  much 
irresponsible  power,  and  is  used  with  so  much  freedom  to 
gratify  private  grudges  and  obtain  private  ends,  that  at  last 
it  falls  by  its  own  weight.  It  is  now  discouraged  by  the  very 
persons  to  whom  it  owed  its  birth.     I  believe  that  the  National 


SALISBURY  275 

League  now  finds  that  the  Frankenstein  which  they  have 
raised  threatens  their  own  interests  as  much  as  those  of  others. 
But  be  that  as  it  may,  I  beheve  that  ParHament  possessing  a 
full  mandate  and  the  Government  in  power  are  bound,  above 
everything  else,  to  exhaust  every  possible  remedy  in  order  that 
men  may  pursue  freely  their  lawful  industry  in  any  station  in  life. 
Now,  there  is  a  very  important  question  of  which  you  have 
heard  a  great  deal,  and  that  is  land.  About  the  land  there 
seems  to  be  an  idea  with  some  persons  that  it  should  be  spHt 
up  into  a  number  of  proprietorships  from  ten  to  fifteen  acres. 
I  will  at  once  say  that  I  regret  exceedingly  the  disappearance  of 
the  yeomanry  in  this  country — and  I  do  not  say  it  with  any 
pressure  of  present  political  motives.  I  have  said  so  on  many 
occasions  during  the  past  twenty  years.  It  is  a  great  mis- 
fortune to  this  country,  and  the  country  does  not  fully  recog- 
nise this  misfortune.  People  imagine  that  where  an  evil 
exists  the  Queen,  the  Lords,  and  the  Commons  should  stop  it. 
I  wonder  they  have  not  brought  in  an  Act  of  Parliament  to 
stop  unfavourable  weather  on  the  occasion  of  political  demon- 
strations. By  aU  means,  make  land  as  easily  transferable  as 
you  can.  Our  opponents,  in  their  speeches,  say  that  we  are 
opposed  to  passing  measures  for  facilitating  the  transfer  of 
land  and  cheapening  it.  The  land  belongs  to  a  great  number 
of  people,  and  among  them  are  many  belonging  to  the  Tory 
party,  and  do  you  suppose  that  we  are  possessed  of  a  desire 
to  pay  inconceivable  and  monstrous  lawyers'  bills  ?  They 
are  as  odious  to  the  squire  as  to  any  other  member  of  the 
human  race.  There  is  no  squire  who  would  not  gladly  welcome 
any  measure  for  cheapening  transfer  of  land.  Having  seen 
successively  the  great  masters  of  the  law  address  themselves 
to  this  great  problem,  and  having  seen  my  lawyer's  bills  con- 
currently increase  by  a  steady  ratio,  I  have  become  very 
sceptical  of  any  promise  of  remedy  in  this  respect.  You  may 
be  quite  certain  that  there  is  more  than  a  desire  on  our  part 
to  make  the  transfer  of  land  and  its  sale  cheap.  Mr.  Goschen 
has  told  us  that  the  transfer  of  land  can  be  made  as  cheap  and 
as  easy  as  Consols — an  observation  which  proves  that  Mr. 
Goschen  knows  more  about  Consols  than  land.  If  you  have  a 
bit  of  land  and  want  to  sell  it,  it  is  necessary  that  you  should, 
in  the  first  place,  prove  that  you  are  the  right  person  to  sell  it, 
and  that  it  is  not  burdened  by  any  mortgage  which  would 


276  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

prevent  you  from  selling.  In  these  two  difficulties  lie  the 
expense  of  the  transfer.  I  have  talked  the  matter  over  with 
my  noble  friend,  the  Lord  Chancellor,  and  he,  I  am  bound  to 
tell  you,  is  very  sanguine  about  it.  He  says  that  he  beheves 
the  thing  can  be  done,  and  is  not  discouraged  by  the  bones  of 
the  knights  who  have  preceded  him  and  been  slain  in  this  great 
enterprise,  and  wants  to  win  the  enchanted  princess  himself. 
He  beheves — and  there  is  no  man  more  competent  to  form  an 
opinion — ^in  a  complete  system  of  registration,  so  that  the 
transfer  of  land  might  be  cheap  and  easy.  With  respect  to 
that  beUef,  I  will  only  say  that  the  experiment  ought  to  be 
tried.  We  ought  to  have  compulsory  registration  of  titles. 
If  we  cannot  achieve  the  object,  no  harm  has  been  done,  and 
it  will  show  that  it  is  no  fault  of  ours  if  the  difficulties  in  land 
transfer  continue.  If  it  is  successful,  not  only  will  the  lawyers' 
bills  be  diminished,  but  every  labouring  man  who  is  able  to 
purchase  will  be  able  to  attach  himself  to  the  freehold  of  the 
land.  One  of  the  absolute  conditions  of  cheap  transfer  in  land 
will  be,  to  use  a  technical  word,  a  short  law  prescription. 
That  is  to  say,  when  a  man  has  been  the  registered  owner  of 
land  for  a  certain  length  of  time,  the  title  shall  be  absolute 
and  indefeasible,  and  there  shall  be  no  more  question  about  it. 
That  is  a  point  upon  which  you  will  come  into  conflict  with 
an  important  authority,  and  that  is  the  Court  of  Chancery. 
But  I  hope  we  shall  overcome  that.  I  am  anxious  to  draw 
your  attention  to  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Jesse  Collings.  He  has  a 
wonderful  scheme  for  providing  that  anyone  who  has  got 
roadside  or  common  land  within  the  last  fifty  years  shall  be 
put  to  the  proof  that  he  or  his  predecessors  acquired  it,  and  if 
they  have  not  got  such  proof  they  shall  lose  the  land  if  Mr. 
CoUings'  proposition  is  passed.  The  existing  law  says  that 
after  twelve  years  anyone  occupying  a  bit  of  land  is  the  owner 
of  the  land  ;  but  Mr.  Collings  says  no,  that  Act  shall  not  apply. 
It  would  have  the  effect  of  doubling  the  cost  of  the  transfer 
of  land  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other.  Every 
man  who  had  bought  a  bit  of  land,  would  have  to  be  quite 
certain  that  the  land  had  not  within  fifty  years  been  included 
in  any  portion  of  what  was  common  land.  It  will  be  difficult 
to  prove  a  negative,  and  it  will  be  necessary  not  only  to  appeal 
to  documents,  but  to  the  memory  of  the  oldest  inhabitant— 
a  gentleman  whose  memory  would  have  to  be  refreshed  by 


SALISBURY  277 

subsidies — whenever  a  transfer  of  land  takes  place.  In  addi- 
tion to  all  the  difficulties  which  now  beset  it,  we  should  have  to 
overcome  these  additional  obstacles.  I  would  venture  to  say 
that  the  requirement  would  add  quite  100  per  cent,  to  the  cost 
of  the  transfer  of  land  in  every  part  of  the  country.  I  have 
quoted  that  in  order  to  show  you  the  recklessness  with  which 
these  land  propositions  are  made  by  people  who  have  never 
gone  out  of  the  smoke  of  a  smoky  town,  or  the  neighbourhood 
of  a  town-hall.  If  you  want  the  land  to  be  dealt  with,  I  hope 
you  will  not  consider  it  to  be  an  assumption  on  my  part,  but 
I  am  afraid  it  must  be  dealt  with  by  people  who  know  something 
about  land.  If  you  hand  it  over  to  inveterate  Cockneys,  who 
know  nothing  but  what  they  have  read  in  magazines,  you  will 
only  make  ten  times  worse  the  evils  you  attempt  to  cure. 
There  is  one  change  I  should  like  to  advocate,  which  would 
place  a  great  deal  of  land  in  the  market,  although  I  have  my 
doubts  as  to  who  the  purchasers  of  the  land  would  be.  I  have 
observed  during  these  years  of  depression  that  the  position 
of  cleigymen  who  possess  glebe  land,  and  the  position  of 
charitable  foundations  dependent  upon  the  same  bequests  of 
land  is  pitiable  in  the  extreme.  I  have  known  men  enjoying 
good  incomes  in  the  good  times,  quite  suddenly  reduced  to 
poverty.  Just  consider  the  position  of  a  clergyman  who  is 
left  with  a  lot  of  land  on  his  hands.  He  can  raise  no  capital 
to  work  it.  As  a  clergyman  he  can  give  no  time  to  attend  to 
it,  for  his  time  is  fully  occupied.  No  farmer  will  take  the  land. 
He  is  absolutely  without  resource,  and  the  large  income  he 
enjoyed  the  day  before  has  vanished  like  a  dream.  His  case 
is  bad  enough  ;  but  what  is  the  case  of  those  small  charitable 
foundations  which  you  will  find  right  through  the  country 
and  upon  which  many  orphans  and  widows  are  dependent  ? 
The  land  is  thrown  upon  their  hands,  and  the  farmer  will  deal 
with  it  no  longer.  They  cannot  obtain  capital,  and  it  is  a  white 
elephant,  which  brings  them  nothing  but  ruin.  I  would  like 
to  see  facihties  placed  in  the  hands  of  all  clergymen  and  all 
ecclesiastical  and  charitable  corporations  to  sell — always  at  a 
fair  price  and  by  a  free  contract — the  land  upon  which  their 
incomes  depend.  They  would  be  much  better  off  and  much 
happier  if  their  incomes  were  derived  from  Consols.  I  do  not 
wish  to  apply  any  sort  of  compulsion  to  them.  At  present  their 
liberty  is  restrained  by  a  certain  terrible  central  office  which 


278  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

exists  in  London,  known  as  the  Ecclesiastical  Commission. 
I  have  had  some  dealings  with  it,  and  I  avow  that  no  considera- 
tion whatever  should  induce  me  to  have  any  more.  (Laughter.) 
I  do  not  accuse  them  of  any  moral  evil ;  it  is  the  perfection  of 
moral  integrity.  It  is  so  spotless  that  they  take  every  con- 
ceivable precaution  that  imagination  can  suggest  to  protect  it, 
and  they  are  so  mdnute  and  so  careful  that  it  is  impossible 
that  any  imperfection  can  find  its  way  through  the  meshes  they 
spread  before  it.  I  wish  to  get  rid  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Com- 
mission. I  would  like  to  see  every  clergyman,  or  the  trustees 
of  every  charitable  society,  have  the  right  to  sell  their  land 
and  invest  the  proceeds  in  Consols,  and,  except  in  cases  of  mani- 
fest fraud,  nobody  should  have  the  right  to  annul  that  trans- 
action. You  would  then  bring  into  market  a  quantity  of 
land  all  over  the  country  peculiarly  suited  for  gardens  and 
allotments,  if  such  were  desired,  and  which,  if  there  exists  this 
class  of  agricultural  labourers  who  desire  to  become  small 
farmers,  would  precisely  suit  their  demands — land  which  in 
its  present  position  would  be  better  placed  in  the  hands  of  any 
private  owner,  no  matter  to  what  class  he  belonged.  I  have 
shown  you  in  what  way,  if  I  may  use  a  vulgar  simile,  the 
wheels  of  land  transfer  might  be  greased.  I  beheve  it  may 
very  materially  be  simplified  and  cheapened.  I  do  not  believe 
that  you  will  find  any  very  large  number  of  peasant  pro- 
prietors spring  out  of  the  legislation  which  you  authorise,  and  I 
do  not  believe  it  for  this  reason — that  this  great  country  has  had 
a  number  of  small  freeholders  from  one  end  of  the  nation  to  the 
other,  and  for  a  hundred  years  and  more  the  process  has  been 
that  the  owners  of  small  freeholds  have  sold  their  lands  and  they 
have  merged  into  the  large  freeholds.  Casting  all  prejudices 
aside,  can  you  misinterpret  the  meaning  of  this  ?  Supposing 
you  saw  a  hillside  upon  which  the  larch  had  grown  and  the 
beech  had  died,  what  would  you  think  of  any  man  who  said, 
"  I  will  cut  down  that  larch  and  plant  that  beech,  that  the 
beech  is  the  right  thing  and  that  the  larch  ought  not  to  exist  ?  " 
Would  you  not  say  that  he  was  struggling  against  the  laws  of 
nature  ?  And  those  who  advocate  an  indiscreet  and  indis- 
criminate system  of  peasant  proprietary,  however  estimable 
their  motives,  are  committing  as  great  an  absurdity  as  the  man 
who  would  try  to  force  the  hands  of  nature  in  the  matter  of 
the   beech   and  larch.       The  truth  is  that   that   which  was 


SALISBURY  279 

prophesied  at  the  time  when  the  Corn  Laws  were  aboUshed  has, 
after  a  long  delay,  come  to  pass.  The  growing  of  wheat  has 
become,  over  a  vast  extent  of  the  country,  an  unprofitable 
occupation.  A  farmer  knows  that  on  the  growing  of  wheat 
depends  the  continuance  of  arable  land,  for  if  the  wheat  crop 
does  not  pay,  the  chance  of  his  arable  land  paying  is  very  small. 
The  consequence  is  that  in  every  part  of  the  country,  especi- 
ally on  the  east  of  the  island,  large  tracts  of  land  are  going  into 
grass.  Grass  does  not  pay  well,  but  it  pays  moderately,  and 
the  landowner,  farmer,  proprietor,  or  occupier  naturally  takes 
to  farming  that  which  is  most  profitable  to  him,  and  the  inva- 
riable result  is  that  the  number  of  hands  required  in  agricul- 
ture diminishes — three  men  for  every  hundred  acres  required  for 
arable  land,  and  one  man  to  every  hundred  acres  for  pasture 
land.  The  irresistible  force  of  economic  facts  is  driving  large 
tracts  of  the  country  from  arable  into  pasturage.  Is  there  any 
use,  any  wisdom,  in  expressing  surprise  at  this,  or  in  trying  to 
resist  the  process,  a  process  dictated  by  laws  and  powers  higher 
than  all  the  boasted  omnipotence  that  Parliament  can  exercise  ? 
The  result  naturally  is  that  large  numbers  of  persons  are  out  of 
employment.  They  get  employment  in  towns,  and  diminish 
the  wages  of  those  already  there.  It  is  a  very  grievous  pro- 
cess. I  would  to  God  we  could  arrest  it,  but  we  should  only 
make  it  worse  if  we  tried  to  arrest  it  in  spite  of  the  teachings 
of  experience  and  the  knowledge  of  political  economy.  You 
have  heard  of  a  proposal  for  diminishing  this  evil,  for  reversing 
the  process  that  is  taking  place,  for  driving  back  the  people 
who  are  leaving  the  country,  and  recultivating  the  land  which 
has  passed  from  arable  to  pasture.  It  is  proposed  that  it 
should  be  done  by  the  local  authority  ;  that  the  local  authority 
should  be  empowered  to  take  compulsorily  land  from  whom 
it  pleases  at  a  price  lower  than  that  given  at  present,  and  that 
it  should  be  empowered  to  let  the  land,  in  small  farms  of  ten, 
fifteen,  or  twenty  acres,  to  the  labourers  in  each  place.  Is 
there  anything  in  your  experience  of  human  affairs  to  induce 
you  to  believe  that  such  a  process  would  be  successful  ?  Con- 
sider what  it  involves.  The  local  authority  would  have  to 
borrow  money  in  order  to  purchase  the  land.  You  borrow 
money  at  4  per  cent.  Nobody  succeeds  in  making  more  than 
2  per  cent,  out  of  land.  For  every  acre  for  which  they  borrow 
the  difference  between  2  per  cent,  and  4  per  cent,  would  have 


280  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

to  be  paid  out  of  the  rates.  Supposing  the  price  of  land  is 
£25  per  acre.  To  purchase  twelve  acres  of  land  you  would 
have  to  give  ;^300.  You  would  get  for  that  ;^6,  you  would  pay 
for  it  £12,  and  £6  would  have  to  be  found  out  of  the  rates,  and 
that  £6  would  be  simply  a  present  to  the  man  whom  you  put 
into  occupation  of  the  land.  It  would  be  a  revival  of  the  old 
practice,  abandoned  fifty  years  ago,  of  subsidising  land  out 
of  the  rates.  That  is  Mr.  Chamberlain's  proposal.  Supposing 
it  was  good  for  the  occupants,  who  is  to  choose  among  the 
competitors  ?  Obviously,  it  would  become  a  matter  of 
favouritism  dependent  upon  the  way  in  which  the  local 
authority  was  elected,  and,  in  the  end,  a  matter  of  political  cor- 
ruption. This  scheme  is  the  budget  of  the  caucus.  It  is  the 
financial  proposal  by  which  the  machinery  of  Birmingham  is 
to  be  kept  going.  It  is  the  mode  of  furnishing  in  each  con- 
stituency in  the  country,  voters  who  shall  be  bound  by  the 
clearest  personal  interests  to  vote  as  the  wire-pullers  of  Birm- 
ingham shall  tell  them.  That  is  the  state  of  affairs  as  it 
affects  persons  who  take  land.  But  just  consider  how  it 
affects  persons  from  whom  the  land  is  taken.  The  local 
authority  has  taken  land  at  less  than  the  price  at  which  it  is 
valued  by  the  seller  ;  and  do  you  think  that  power  will  not  be 
exercised,  and  if  a  man  resisted  he  would  not  be  made  to  feel 
the  supremacy  of  the  local  council  ?  This  is  not  a  question 
for  the  rich  only,  because  there  are  small  landowners  as  well  as 
large,  and  the  power  of  the  local  council  would  extend  to  both. 
The  large  owner  would  be  able  to  fight  when  threatened, 
whereas  the  smaU  one  would  be  utterly  at  the  mercy  of  the 
local  council  and  unable  to  say  a  word  in  his  own  behalf.  That 
is  the  real  secret  of  a  proposal  which  offers  no  real  relief  for 
labouring  men.  Nobody  thinks  it  will  be  possible  for  the 
occupants  of  land  in  small  quantities  to  succeed  where  larger 
holders  have  failed.  Men  with  capital,  horses,  and  machinery 
have  failed  to  make  their  holdings  pay,  and  do  you  suppose 
that  those  men,  with  none  of  those  things,  wiU  be  more  suc- 
cessful ?  Agriculture  is  a  pursuit  in  which  remunerativeness 
depends  upon  being  able  to  average  bad  seasons  with  good, 
but  this  poor  men  could  not  do.  You  may  depend  upon  it 
there  is  no  prospect  of  relief  to  the  working  men  in  this  pro- 
posal. There  is  only  the  prospect  of  the  most  ingenious  and 
careful  political  domination  and  corruption  to  which,  if  you 


SALISBURY  281 

retain  any  of  the  instincts  of  free  men,  you  will  offer  a  very 
firm  and  unsparing  opposition. 

Now  I  think  I  have  one  matter  more  to  talk  of  and 
that  is  the  matter  of  free  education.  I  think — and  in  this  I 
believe  I  have  the  singular  and  unusual  felicity  of  being  in 
accord  with  Mr.  Gladstone — that  this  question  cannot  be 
dealt  with  in  the  summary  way  that  Mr,  Chamberlain  has 
dealt  with  it.  No  doubt  the  fact  of  the  compulsory  character 
of  education  does  give  to  the  poor  of  the  country  a  very 
considerable  claim.  If  the  law  says  you  shall  have  edu- 
cation, and  they  are  unable  to  pay  without  enormous 
difficulty,  then  there  is  a  reason  why  they  should  be  assisted ; 
but  they  are  assisted  under  the  present  law,  and  I  do  not  think 
that  we  should  make  presents  of  large  sums  of  public  money 
to  people  perfectly  competent  to  pay  for  the  education  of  their 
children,  I  should  Uke  to  help  the  poor  more  liberally,  and  to 
enforce  education  without  undue  hardship ;  but  I  should 
shrink  before  I  gave  every  subject  of  the  Queen,  whether  rich 
or  poor,  the  right  to  have  his  children  educated  at  the  pubhc 
expense.  I  do  not  see  any  reason  for  adding  to  the  public 
burdens,  and  I  think  it  will  be  some  time  before  the  taxpayers 
wiU  agree  to  such  a  proposition.  As  to  rehgious  education, 
which  Mr.  Morley  desires  to  get  rid  of,  it  is  one  of  our  most 
cherished  privileges.  I  am  not  speaking  for  my  own  Church  alone. 
What  I  claim  I  would  extend  equally  to  the  Nonconformists 
of  Wales  or  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Ireland.  But  I  do 
claim  that  whatever  Church  or  form  of  Christianity  they  belong 
to,  there  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to  educate  the  people 
in  the  belief  of  Christianity  which  they  profess,  instead  of 
giving  them  a  lifeless,  boiled-down,  mechanical,  unreal  religious 
teaching  which  is  prevalent  in  the  Board  schools.  Believe  me, 
the  essence  of  true  religious  teaching  is  that  the  teacher  should 
believe  that  which  he  teaches,  and  should  be  deUvering,  as  he 
believes  it,  the  whole  message  of  truth.  Unless  there  is  that 
sympathetic,  that  magnetic,  feeling  established  between  stu- 
dents and  teachers  that  the  teacher  is  dealing  honestly  with 
them,  the  public  wiH  believe  that  the  religious  teaching  is  a 
sham.  Therefore,  I  would  give  the  utmost  freedom  that 
could  possibly  be  given  to  all  denominations  in  this  country 
to  teach  as  they  believe,  and  that  which  they  esteem  the  highest 
religious  truths  of  Christianity  they  profess.     You  have  heard, 


282  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

perhaps,  too  much  in  recent  days  of  crime,  and  sins,  and 
sorrows,  which  it  is  a  shame  to  mention.  You  have  heard  state- 
ments of  corruption,  and  you  have  heard  proposals  of  legisla- 
tion by  which  it  was  hoped  that  such  corruption  could  be 
stemmed.  There  is  only  one  remedy  for  such  corruption, 
and  that  is  the  true  teaching  of  the  principles  of  Christianity. 
I  ask  you  to  defend,  as  citizens  of  your  country,  the  right  of 
our  children  to  be  taught  the  whole  truth  and  be  brought  up  as 
Christians,  as  we  think  they  should,  without  any  theories  of 
side  influence  in  secular  doctrines,  so  as  to  be  allowed  to  enter 
and  diminish,  and  frustrate  the  highest  privileges  that  we  as 
Christians  possess.  And  now,  one  more  thing  and  I  have  done. 
You  have  read,  no  doubt,  what  I  call  that  long  and  dreary 
epistle  from  the  retirement  of  the  late  Prime  Minister.  You 
have  seen  how,  amid  other  things,  he  has  consigned  to  the 
category  of  doubtful  matters  which  depend  upon  the  majority 
of  voices,  his  convictions  and  his  course  in  reference  to  the 
Established  Church  of  these  islands.  It  is  a  shame  that  this 
crowning  opinion  has  been  spared  to  us.  I  confess  I  never 
believed  that  I  should  see  Mr.  Gladstone  among  those  who 
would  attempt  to  disestablish  and  disendow  the  Church  of 
these  islands.  Deeply  as  we  may  lament  this  evidence  of  the 
power  which  party  ties  possess,  we  must  not  misinter- 
pret the  significance  of  this  avowal  or  the  duties  it  imposes 
upon  us.  It  means  that  the  time  of  ultimate  and  supreme 
conflict  is  at  hand — that  the  danger  which  we  have  foreseen 
for  many  days  is  now  close  at  our  doors.  It  may  come  upon 
us  in  the  present  Parliament.  The  language  that  Mr.  Cham- 
berlain has  used,  the  fact  that  he  has  used  it  without  rebuke, 
the  fact  that  he  has  been  allowed  to  assume  the  leadership  of 
the  Liberal  party,  almost  without  hindrance  or  demur,  shows 
that  with  the  present  Parliament  you  may  have  a  proposal 
for  the  disendowment  of  the  Church  of  this  country,  a  pro- 
posal fraught  with  frightful  disaster  to  the  nation  and  more 
calamitous  than  any  other  change  which  has  taken  place.  I  see 
it  is  stated  that  other  Churches  in  other  countries  succeed  on 
the  voluntary  principle.  Yes,  the  voluntary  principle  has 
grown  up  side  by  side  with  these  Churches.  In  America  the 
voluntary  principle  succeeded  from  the  first  because,  when  the 
Churches  were  few  and  the  population  small,  the  elementary 
principle  was  upheld,  and  the  American  Church  is  now  endowed 


SALISBURY  283 

in  sufficient  measure  for  her  absolute  necessities.  Look  at  the 
Nonconformist  bodies  ;  their  endowments  have  been  built 
up  from  the  outside,  and  they  have  resources  at  their  command 
which  might  pay  all  the  necessary  claims  which  are  made  upon 
them,  but  that  is  not  the  case  with  the  Church.  The  Church 
would  be  stripped  and  bare.  In  every  part  of  the  land  the 
machinery  by  which  God's  word  has  been  preached,  by  which 
Christianity  has  been  upheld,  by  which  all  the  ministrations 
of  religion  have  been  carried  to  suffering  humanity  would  be  put 
an  end  to.  All  this  machinery  would  by  this  one  blow  be 
destroyed,  and  generations  would  be  required  before  it  could  be 
replaced.  This  it  is  with  a  light  heart  Mr.  Gladstone  is  pre- 
pared to  sacrifice.  We  can  only  accept  his  announcement 
as  a  call  to  greater  energy  and  preparation  on  our  part.  We 
can  have  no  sympathy  with  those  who  think  that  by  supporting 
the  Liberal  party  now  they  may  get  better  terms  when  the 
catastrophe  comes  further  on.  There  are  Liberal  Churchmen 
whose  action  in  this  great  crisis  has  been  without  parallel.  I 
can  understand  a  man  who  thinks  that  the  interest  of  the 
Church  is  inferior  to  the  interest  of  the  party  ;  and  thinks  that 
to  support  a  leader  is  more  important  than  to  keep  up  the 
basis  for  the  teaching  of  Christian  religion,  which  has  been 
preached  for  over  a  thousand  years.  Those  who  are  of  an  oppo- 
site mind,  and  I  believe  them  to  be  numerous,  those  Liberal 
Churchmen  who  think  the  interests  of  the  Church  are  the  most 
important  matter  in  the  field  of  political  controversy,  I  would 
have  them  consider  the  course  they  would  pursue,  now  it  is 
announced,  and  not  in  an  obscure  kind  of  way,  that  their 
leader  is  prepared  to  see  the  Church  disestablished  when  there 
is  a  convenient  opportunity.  They  must  know  the  important 
stake  for  which  the  contest  is  being  waged.  Liberal  Churchmen 
who  now  support  the  Liberal  party,  after  the  declarations  that 
are  being  made,  are  supporting  the  machinery  to  destroy  that 
which  they  hold  most  dear.  They  are,  therefore,  a  weapon 
by  which  the  Church  is  to  be  struck  down,  I  cannot  conceive 
what  the  sophistry  is  that  induces  them  to  vote  for  those  who 
are  ready  to  undertake  the  destruction  of  the  mechanism  by 
which  Christianity  has  been  upheld  in  this  country.  We  can 
talk  in  no  ambiguous  language  to  these  men.  It  is  a  matter  of 
life  and  death  to  us.  Our  party  is  bound  up  with  the  main- 
tenance of  the  established  and  endowed  Church  of  the  country. 


284  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

We  hear  many  prophecies  as  to  the  result  of  the  coming  election, 
and  some  of  our  adversaries  talk  in  sanguine  language.  Per- 
haps what  has  recently  taken  place  in  France  may  teach  some 
Opportunists  in  this  country  the  wisdom  of  modesty  in  pre- 
diction. But,  be  that  as  it  may,  we  do  not  look  to  the  result ; 
we  look  to  the  principles  we  uphold,  by  which  we  are  bound 
in  conscience  to  the  tradition  of  our  party,  and,  as  men  of 
honour,  to  stand  or  fall.  We  can  admit  in  these  matters  no  com- 
promise, no  hope  that  we  shall  support  any  proposal  for  the 
overthrow  or  injury  of  that  which  we  hold  so  dear — the  main- 
tenance of  the  framework  of  our  Constitution,  the  upholding 
of  the  rights  of  property,  and,  more  than  all,  the  support  of 
that  sacred  institution  which  is  supported  by  ancient  endow- 
ments, and  by  the  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  State, 
which  now,  for  generation  after  generation,  in  Scotland  and 
in  England,  has  held  up  the  torch  of  truth  and  has  maintained 
those  truths  of  Christianity  before  the  world.  To  that,  as  a 
party,  as  honest  men,  as  Christians,  we  are  irrevocably  bound. 


SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

Sir  William  Harcourt  was  a  born  fighter,  who  loved  pohtical 
conflict  for  its  own  sake,  delighting  in  the  cut  and  thrust  of 
debate,  as  in  the  polemics  of  the  platform.  His  knowledge  of 
Parliamentary  history  was  very  wide,  and  he  was  devoted  to 
Parliamentary  tradition,  a  firm  believer  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. He  had  studied  the  annals  of  the  Whig  party  with 
peculiar  care,  and  held  that  political  problems  could  best  be 
solved  by  adapting  Whig  principles  to  modern  conditions.  He 
combined  the  old  and  the  new  with  great  skill,  so  that  his 
speeches  are  at  once  rhetorical  and  practical,  eloquent  and 
effective,  vigorous  contributions  to  the  controversies  of  the 
day,  and  at  the  same  time  suggestive  of  the  manner  in  which 
our  constitutional  development  has  proceeded.  He  belongs 
rather  to  the  older  than  the  more  modern  school  of  English 
oratory.  His  style,  though  simple  in  substance,  was  elaborate 
in  form,  and  always  carefully  prepared.  He  was  one  of  the 
few  speakers  whose  speeches  were  good  both  to  hear  and  to 
read.  From  a  platform  he  put  plain  ideas  into  straight- 
forward, vigorous  language,  which  left  nothing  unfinished 
or  obscure.  In  the  House  of  Commons  he  would  have 
been  a  more  effective  debater  if  he  had  been  less 
dependent  upon  prepared  phraseology.  But  that  defect  disap- 
pears altogether  in  reports,  and,  therefore,  Harcourt's  speeches 
are  literature  in  a  rhetorical  form,  which  can  be  read  with 
pleasure  by  anyone  understanding  the  circumstances  of  their 
delivery.  One  of  his  best  and  most  characteristic  efforts  was 
his  defence  of  his  own  great  Budget,  delivered  on  the  second 
reading  of  the  Finance  Bill  in  1894.  The  Bill  itself  was 
necessarily  encumbered  with  detail.  But  in  this  speech  Har- 
court threw  aside  secondary  questions,  as  better  suited  for  the 
stage  of  Committee,  and  apphed  himself  to  the  task  of  explaining 

285 


286  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  principles  on  which  he  had  proceeded.  He  had  two 
great  quahfications  for  this  performance.  In  the  first  place, 
he  had  thoroughly  mastered  every  point  of  his  scheme  as  related 
to  every  other.  In  the  second  place,  he  could  show  that  the 
governing  considerations  of  the  whole  were  few  and  clear, 
capable  of  being  set  forth  with  striking  effect,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  with  accurate  lucidity.  When  Harcourt  was  not  deahng 
with  facts,  he  was  apt  to  be  led  astray  by  the  temptations  which 
beset  masters  of  words,  and  to  exaggerate  the  significance  of  an 
argument  or  an  analogy.  But  when,  as  in  this  case,  he  had  a 
definite  poUcy  in  his  mind,  the  tendency  was  corrected  by  the 
limits  he  himself  imposed,  and  the  result  exhibited  all  his 
powers  at  their  best  without  any  drawback.  Few  men  have 
combined  better  than  Harcourt  the  quahties  of  a  popular  orator 
with  those  of  a  practical  politician,  A  speech,  therefore,  in 
which  he  was  defending  a  Budget  of  his  own  affords  ample 
scope  for  setting  his  especial  endowments  side  by  side. 


Second  Reading  of  the  Budget  Bill,  1894 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  who,  on  rising,  was 
received  with  loud  cheering,  said — 

After  this  long  and  protracted  debate,  I  am  glad  that  we 
have  at  last  arrived  at  the  point  which  is  to  determine  the  fate 
of  the  Budget.  (Cheers.)  The  right  honourable  gentleman 
who  has  just  sat  down  has  admitted  that  the  course  which  the 
Opposition  have  taken  on  this  occasion  is  absolutely  without 
precedent.  (Cheers.)  He  knows  as  well  as  I  know  that  the 
second  reading  of  a  Bill  brought  forward  by  the  Government 
to  carry  out  the  financial  arrangements  necessary  to  meet  the 
obhgations  of  the  State  has  never  before  been  met  by  an 
amendment  to  read  the  Bill  a  second  time  that  day  six  months. 
The  moving  of  such  an  amendment  is  a  measure  far  more  extreme 
than  that  of  stopping  the  supplies.  On  former,  but  on  rare, 
occasions,  amendments  have  been  moved  on  a  second  reading 
of  a  Budget  Bill,  but  they  have  been  amendments  which  have 
fixed  upon  some  particular  point,  and  they  have  generally,  I 


HARCOURT  287 

think  universally,  been  moved  by  some  responsible  man.  I 
do  not  complain  of  this  proceeding,  because  I  know  that  it  is 
not  aimed  so  much  at  the  life  of  the  Budget  as  at  the  life  of  the 
Government.  It  was  thought  well  to  spread  the  net  wide 
enough  to  embrace  all  those  who,  whatever  their  views  might 
be  on  finance,  desire  to  overthrow  the  Administration.  The 
temptation  of  securing  the  aid  of  an  Irish  contingent  was  too 
great  to  be  resisted.  I  do  not  complain  that  the  right  honour- 
able gentlemen  opposite  have  succumbed  to  it.  There  is, 
however,  one  advantage  in  the  form  of  this  motion,  for  which 
I  welcome  it.  It  dispenses  me  altogether  from  going  into  all 
those  dreary  and  minute  particulars  which  belong  to  Committee, 
and  which  are  not  appropriate  to  the  second  reading  of  this 
Bill.  The  opposition  to  the  measure  has  raised  what  the 
lawyers  call  "  the  general  issue  "  upon  the  principles  of  the 
Budget,  and  I  am  glad  of  it  because  it  enables  us  to  do  to-night 
what  we  most  desire,  namely,  to  take  the  opinion  of  this  House 
first  and  of  the  country  afterwards — do  not  be  in  a  hurry,  we 
cannot  do  it  to-night — upon  the  principles  on  which  the  finan- 
cial proposals  of  the  Government  are  based.  The  course  of 
this  discussion  has  followed  pretty  accurately  upon  the  lines 
upon  which  it  was  originally  launched.  The  twin  champions 
who  moved  and  seconded  this  amendment  represented  the 
two  most  powerful  and  the  two  closest  monopolies  in  this 
country,  the  monopoly  of  land  and  the  monopoly  of  liquor. 
That  was  an  antagonism  for  which  Her  Majesty's  Government 
were  perfectly  prepared.  I  will  deal  first  with  what  I  may, 
without  disrespect  to  honourable  members  opposite,  call  the 
Uquor  of  the  Opposition.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  has 
accused  me  of  not  only  taxing  the  liquor  interest,  but  of 
insulting  it.  But  why  does  he  say  that  I  insulted  it  ?  He 
said  first  of  all  that  I  have  violated  all  the  principles  of  finance 
formerly  held  on  this  side  of  the  House.  One  of  his  charges 
against  me  was  that  I  had  said  this  tax  would  not  fall  upon  the 
consumer,  but  upon  the  trade.  That  is  precisely  what  his 
own  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  said  when  he  put  on  his  duty 
on  the  liquor  interest.  I  quoted  the  language  in  my  Budget 
speech  of  that  right  honourable  gentleman.  This  is  the 
language  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman — 

"  I  beg  the  Committee  to  observe,  therefore,  that  I  am 
obtaining  my  revenue  by  the  addition  of  a  tax  which  cannot  be 


288  FAMOUS  SPEFCHES 

•felt  by  the  consumer."  That  is  th'-  charge  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  brings  against  me,  and  then  he  says  that  I  am  attack- 
ing the  liquor  interest  as  no  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  ever  did 
before,  and  upon  principles  which  I  ought  not  to  have  adopted. 
The  right  honourable  gentleman  the  member  for  Midlothian 
(Mr.  Gladstone)  said  that  "  We  ought  to  raise  the  duty  on  them 
as  much  as  we  can,  consistently  with  the  poUcy  and  the  neces- 
sity for  preventing  the  growth  of  a  contraband  trade.'*  The 
right  honourable  gentleman  contrasted  that  with  other  trades, 
on  which  he  said  we  ought  to  lower  the  tax  as  much  as  possible. 
There  are  people  who  accuse  me  personally,  as  well  as  in  my 
capacity  of  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  of  having  brought 
forward  these  proposals  out  of  spite.  I  do  not  beheve  there 
is  anyone  in  this  House,  who  really  thinks  that  is  so.  (Cheers.) 
I  have  made  these  proposals  not  upon  social,  but  exclusively 
upon  fiscal,  grounds.  I  stated  in  my  Budget  speech  that  I 
had  taken  means  to  ascertain  that  the  trade  was  in  a  condition 
in  which  a  further  tax  might  be  imposed  upon  it  without 
oppression,  and  I  stated  at  that  time  that  this  was  a  trade 
which  was  making  large  profits,  and  that,  if  that  was  challenged, 
I  should  be  prepared  to  prove  it.  I  will  now  give  the  House 
facts  which  will  show  that  I  was  justified  in  my  assertion. 
Of  course  I  am  not  going  to  give  the  names  of  individual  firms. 
In  1884  the  total  profits  of  the  trade  assessed  in  the  income  tax 
returns  was  £6,316,000;  in  1893-4  it  was  ,^10, 177,000— an 
increase  of  nearly  four  millions,  or  nearly  40  per  cent,  in  the 
course  of  those  ten  years,  and  the  remarkable  thing  is  that  the 
increase  took  place,  and  has  gone  on  notwithstanding  the 
increase  in  the  duties  which  was  placed  upon  the  trade  by  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  opposite,  and  which  was  so  much 
complained  of.  What  is  the  history  of  these  extraordinary 
profits  ?  I  stated  in  my  Budget  speech,  and  I  now  repeat, 
that  the  main  cause  of  these  large  profits  is  the  great  fall  in 
the  price  of  the  materials  employed.  I  have  before  me  a  list 
of  the  various  articles,  showing  the  fall  that  has  occurred  in 
each  during  the  past  twenty  years.  I  find  in  that  period  that 
the  materials  used  by  brewers  have  fallen  on  an  average  about 
30  per  cent.  The  fall  in  malt  has  been  44  per  cent.  ;  in  sugar, 
37  per  cent.  ;  rice,  23  per  cent.  ;  hops,  14  per  cent. ;  barley, 
30  per  cent.  ;  oats,  28  per  cent.  ;  maize,  34  per  cent.  ;  and 
molasses  21  per  cent.     In  the  case  of  an  article  using  materials 


HARCOURT 

which  have  fallen  to  that  extent  you  would  naturally  expect, 
its  selHng  price  not  having  materially  altered,  that  the  profits 
would  be  very  large.  Yet  when  these  gentlemen  are  asked 
to  come  forward  to  take  a  share  in  meeting  the  extra  demands 
which  it  is  necessary  to  make  upon  the  country  they  dechne. 
But,  indignant  as  they  are,  they  tell  us  at  the  same  time  that 
they  are  not  going  to  suffer  by  the  new  tax.  The  member  for 
Wimbledon  (Mr.  Bonsor),  with  a  cheerful  countenance,  told  us 
that  the  trade  will  not  suffer  at  all ;  that  they  wiU  take  care  of 
themselves.  All  the  tears  of  the  honourable  member  were 
reserved  for  the  growers  of  barley.  He  told  us  that  the 
brewers  were  always  anxious  to  use  the  best  English  barley, 
and  he  pointed  out  that  in  1876  barley  was  45s.  6d.,  while  in 
1893  it  was  only  28s.  lOd.,  per  quarter.  But  if  he  was  so 
anxious  to  buy,  and  could  buy,  good  barley  at  that 
price,  why  did  he  not  buy  it  and  use  it  exclusively  ? 
But  the  honourable  member  further  went  on  to  teU 
us  that  between  1876  and  1893,  the  consumption  of 
sugar  had  increased  between  two  and  three  fold,  until, 
in  1893,  it  had  reached  the  enormous  total  which  he 
gave  us.  Here  is  the  friend  of  the  English  barley-grower, 
who  can  buy  barley  at  half  the  price  it  was  some  years  ago, 
and  yet  buys  sugar  to  that  enormous  extent.  The  honourable 
member  also  went  on  to  teU  us  about  raw  grain,  and  he  stated 
that  at  the  Brewers'  Institute  it  was  agreed  that  10  per  cent, 
of  raw  grain  could  be  used  without  injuring  the  quahty  of  the 
beer.  Why,  Sir,  does  anybody  believe  that  the  brewers  in 
the  past  have  not  used  the  article  which  they  could  buy  at 
the  cheapest  rate,  and  that  they  will  not  do  so  in  the  future 
as  in  the  past  ?  I  think,  then,  I  may  leave  the  soHcitude  of 
the  honourable  member  for  Wimbledon  for  the  English  barley- 
growers  to  take  care  of  itself,  for  he  did  not  contend  that  the 
brewers  would  suffer,  but  told  us  they  would  take  care  of  them- 
selves. But  there  was  another  champion  of  the  brewing  interest 
who  came  forward  ;  the  honourable  member  for  Mid-Armagh 
(Mr.  Barton) ,  who  spoke  in  behalf  of  the  great  firm  of  Guinness. 
Now  his  sohcitude  was  not  for  the  EngUsh  barley-growers, 
but  for  the  small  brewers.  He  did  not  pretend  that  the  firm 
of  Guinness  was  going  to  suffer,  but  he  wept  tears — I  might 
almost  call  them  tears  of  the  Saurian  species — over  the  small 
brewers.     But  what  is  it  that  has  destroyed  the  small  brewers  ? 

19— (2171) 


290  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Why,  it  is  the  gigantic  monopohes  which  bought  up  all  the  free 
public-houses,  and  turned  them  into  tied  houses.  And  these 
are  the  sort  of  reasons  which  are  brought  forward  by  members 
of  the  House  of  Commons. 

Mr.  Barton  :  I  beg  to  say  that  the  house  of  Guinness  never 
had  or  owned  a  tied  house,  and  never  had  a  pubhc-house,  and 
the  observations  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  had  no 
reference  to  that  subject  whatsoever. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  I  accept  what  the 
honourable  member  has  said,  but  it  does  not  alter  the  absolute 
truth  of  the  statement  that  the  small  brewers  of  this  country 
have  disappeared  under  the  influence  of  these  great  monopohes 
which  have  established  the  system  of  tied  houses.  They  are 
doing  so  day  by  day,  and  we  know  that  the  competition 
between  these  great  houses  is  making  it  more  and  more  neces- 
sary for  them  to  buy  up  houses  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
small  brewers.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  said  I  had 
behaved  very  unfairly  towards  the  Ucensed  victuallers  in  the 
statement  I  made  with  reference  to  their  profits.  I  only 
stated  what  I  knew  to  be  the  fact  because  it  had  been  so 
ascertained.  One  of  the  members  of  Surrey,  who  spoke  with 
great  authority  also  on  behalf  of  the  trade,  gave  figures  of  the 
profits — not  of  the  sales — of  hcensed  victuallers,  and  he  stated 
that  the  profit  was  30  per  cent. 

Mr.  Combe  :  The  profit  of  33  per  cent,  which  I  gave  was  the 
gross  profit  and  not  the  net  profit. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  I  cannot  argue  with 
the  honourable  member.  I  thought  he  was  referring  to  the 
profit  after  deducting  all  expenses  which  were  involved  in 
serving  out  two-pennyworth  of  gin.  At  any  rate,  I  beUeve 
the  profit  on  the  two-pennyworth  is  a  great  deal  upwards  of 
100  per  cent.  Before  I  leave  this  hquor  question  I  should  Uke 
to  know  what  is  the  financial  position  which  the  responsible 
gentlemen  opposite  are  prepared  to  adopt  on  this  Hquor  ques- 
tion. Do  you  accept  to-night,  by  the  aUiance  you  have  made 
and  by  the  vote  you  are  about  to  give,  the  principle  that  beer 
cannot  and  ought  not  to  bear  additional  taxation  ?  With 
the  prospect  of  great  and  increasing  expenditure,  are  you 
going  to  cut  off  from  yourselves,  in  order  that  you  may  get  a 
vote  against  the  Government  to-night,  the  taxation  of  beer 
and  spirits  ?     What  are  you  going  to  tax,  since  you  have 


HARCOURT  291 

promised  and  vowed  to  these  gentlemen  that  beer  and  spirits 
ought  not  to  be  taxed  ?  Are  you  going  to  tax  tea  ?  Are 
you  going  to  tax  sugar  ?  Are  you  going  to  tax  corn  ?  If  you 
are  not,  and  you  want  more  money,  are  you  going  to  put  it 
on  the  income  tax  ?  Before  I  leave  this  question  of  spirits,  I 
ought  to  say  a  word  upon  the  speech,  the  very  moderate  and  able 
speech,  of  the  honourable  memberfor  NorthDublin  (Mr. Clancy). 
He  gave  some  figures  of  what  he  supposed  would  be  the  effect 
of  the  tax  we  were  going  to  impose  upon  Ireland.  I  very  much 
regret  that  I  have  not  been  able — I  hope  to  be  in  a  day  or  two 
— to  lay  an  accurate  return  on  the  table  of  the  House  showing 
the  exact  bearing  of  the  tax  we  propose  upon  Ireland.  The 
figures  he  gave  are  not  those  at  which  we  have  arrived.  There 
is  one  small  error  in  his  calculation  I  should  like  to  correct. 
He  spoke  of  the  taxation  we  are  about  to  raise  as  £2,300,000. 
The  additional  taxation  we  propose  is  ;^2,670,000.  We  esti- 
mate the  beer  and  spirit  duties  at  £130,000 ;  the  additional 
income  tax  with  abatement  £40,000  ;  the  estate  duties  only 
£30,000,  for  this  reason,  first  of  all,  graduation  will  not  largely 
obtain  in  Ireland  on  account  of  the  smallness  of  the  estates,  and, 
secondly,  that  upon  land  no  estate  duty  will  be  collected  during 
the  present  year  either  in  England  or  in  Ireland,  for  the  period 
of  the  passing  of  the  Bill  will  be  such  that  it  will  be  impossible 
to  coUect  any  estate  duty  on  land  during  the  financial  year. 
The  honourable  member  for  North  Armagh  (Major  Saunderson) 
talked  of  the  industry  of  brewers  and  distillers  in  Ireland  being  in 
a  bad  condition.  That  is  an  error  on  his  part.  The  number  of 
distillers  has  not  fallen  off  during  the  last  ten  years,  and  their 
profits  have  increased  from  £280,000  in  1884  to  £315,000  in 
1893 ;  and  as  regards  the  brewers,  the  profits  assessed  to  the 
income  tax  have  increased  from  £486,000  in  1884  to  £875,000 
in  1893,  or  nearly  double.  Therefore  the  view  that  the  honour- 
able gentleman  took  that  these  are  waning  industries  is  not 
well  founded.  Then  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  member 
for  St.  George's  (Mr.  Goschen)  severely  criticised  my  method  of 
dealing  with  these  duties,  of  deahng  with  them  temporarily. 
Well,  Sir,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  characteristic 
methods  of  his  own  which  I  have  not  thought  it  right  to 
imitate.  In  1889  he  proposed  an  additional  duty  on  beer 
and,  under  pressure  from  the  honourable  member  for 
Wimbledon,  he  held  out  hopes  that  if  the  revenue  permitted 


292  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

a  remission  of  taxation  that  duty  would  be  taken  ofi  the  next 
year. 

Mr.  GoscHEN  :  I  did  not  say  that.     I  did  not  use  those  words. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  Well,  I  copied  them 
this  morning.  These  conditions  were  fulfilled.  The  revenue 
did  admit  of  a  reduction  in  the  next  year,  and  in  fulfilment 
of  his  pledge,  the  right  honourable  gentleman  stated  in  his 
speech  on  the  Budget  that  the  increased  beer  duty  would  be 
remitted  that  year  for  Imperial  purposes,  and  then,  at  the  end 
of  his  speech,  he  proceeded  to  reimpose  it  for  purposes  of  local 
taxation  to  replace  his  unfortunate  wheel  and  van  tax.  Well, 
that  is  characteristic  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman.  I 
prefer  my  direct  methods  to  such  shifty  finance  as  that.  I 
do  not  know  whether  the  brewing  interest  would  be  particu- 
larly pleased  if  I  were  to  imitate  the  example  of  the  right 
honourable  gentleman. 

I  now  come,  Sir,  to  the  other  great  protagonists  against 
the  Budget — I  mean  the  landed  interest.  They  come  forward, 
as  they  always  have  come  forward,  to  insist  on  their 
privilege  of  exemption  from  taxation.  Of  course  I  do  not 
expect  honourable  gentlemen  opposite  to  agree  with  me. 
We  propose,  under  this  estate  duty,  to  raise  a  million 
this  year.  It  is  sometimes  said  "  Is  it  worth  while  to  do 
all  this  to  raise  a  miUion  ?  "  That  is  not  the  proposal. 
Our  proposal  is  to  raise  a  tax  of  between  three  and  a  half 
millions  and  four  millions  ultimately,  to  add  to  the  resources 
of  the  country.  Now,  the  proportion  formed  by  realty  to 
personalty  is  one-fifth  of  the  total  of  the  capital  of  the  country. 
The  capital  of  the  country  has  been  estimated — I  do  not  say 
it  is  a  correct  estimate,  but  it  is  commonly  accepted — at 
£2,200,000,000,  and  out  of  that  £400,000,000  is  the  proportion 
of  realty.  It  now  pays  £1,150,000  out  of  £10,000,000  to  the 
death  duties.  Under  our  scheme  it  will  pay  £2,500,000  out 
of  £13,500,000,  or  a  httle  less  than  one-fifth.  If  it  paid  its 
full  proportion  it  would  pay  £2,750,000  instead  of  £2,500,000. 
The  figures  we  have  given  on  the  subject  have  been  disputed. 
They  were  disputed  by  the  honourable  member  for  Surrey. 
He  was  good  enough  to  tell  me  frankly  the  grounds  on  which 
he  objected  to  this  increase,  and  he  showed  me  a  list  of  some 
estates  which  had  been  examined.  Those  estates  were  aU 
settled   estates,   subject   to   graduation,    and   most   of   them 


HARCOURT  293 

London  estates.  When  I  looked  at  those  estates  I  said,  "  If 
you  will  only  allow  me  to  read  this  list  to  the  House,  I  think 
you  will  carry  the  Budget  by  acclamation."  There  is  no  doubt 
that  in  estates  of  that  character  a  large  amount  of  additional 
taxation  will  be  raised.  That  is  our  object ;  but  upon  the 
moderate  estates  really  the  increase  will  be  extremely  small. 
I  may  remind  the  House  that  when  they  speak  of  realty  great 
confusion  arises.  Realty  means  land  and  it  means  houses. 
Of  this,  land,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  is  the  smaller 
moiety.  It  represents  £600,000  of  the  additional  taxation 
we  propose  to  raise,  which  is  about  one-sixth  of  the  whole. 
It  is  to  be  subject  to  a  recoupment  upon  Schedule  A  of 
£160,000  ;  and  though  I  do  not  say  that  our  calculation  is 
absolutely  accurate,  it  rests  on  the  most  experienced  know- 
ledge of  men  with  the  fullest  materials  at  their  disposal  as  to 
what  will  be  the  result  of  the  taxation.  From  whom  does  this 
complaint  come  ?  It  does  not  come  from  realty  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word.  We  have  heard  complaints  of  the  land 
as  distinguished  from  the  houses  ;  we  have  heard  very  Httle 
complaint  of  the  settled  personalty  which  will  come  under  this 
additional  taxation.  We  have  heard  httle  from  the  other 
realty  which  is  not  agricultural  land.  They  apparently  are 
not  unwilling  to  take  their  share  in  the  burdens  which  must 
fall  on  the  nation.  But  in  addition  to  the  liquor  interest, 
we  have  had  those  strong  complaints  from  the  landed  interest. 
The  leaseholder  is  a  very  important  section  of  the  community. 
He  is  already  subject  to  the  whole  weight  of  this  taxation 
which  the  freeholder  in  land  refuses  to  accept.  The  grounds 
on  which  this  refusal  is  based  are  mainly  two  ;  first,  the  pay- 
ment of  rates.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite 
undertook  to  redress  this  inequahty  three  or  four  years  ago. 
He  stated  that  he  had  redressed  that  inequality,  and  upon 
that  occasion,  or  immediately  afterwards,  the  right  honourable 
member  for  Sleaford,  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  Government 
on  a  motion  that  the  death  duties  ought  to  be  equalised 
because  this  compensation  had  been  given  in  respect  of  rates, 
said  :  '*  The  occupier  pays  a  certain  sum  for  the  use  of  the  land, 
and  in  that  sum  are  included  rates  as  well  as  taxes.  The  effect 
on  the  owner  is  that  if  the  rates  are  high,  he  gets  less  rent, 
and  if  they  are  low,  he  gets  more  rent ;  and  I  maintain  it  is 
not  difficult  to  show  that  the  whole  burden  of  the  rates  falls 


294  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

upon  the  owner  of  the  land  and  upon  no  one  else."  On  that 
the  right  honourable  member  for  Midlothian  remarked  on 
the  importance  of  that  statement.  He  pointed  out  with  refer- 
ence to  those  subsidies  of  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
was  the  author,  that  an  actual  gift  of  £5,000,000  or  £6,000,000 
had  been  made  to  the  owners  of  land.  (Mr.  Goschen  dissented.) 
These  are  the  words — 

"  But  tliis  fact  stands,  that  as  the  whole  of  that  portion  of 
£6,000,000  which  went  to  the  relief  of  the  rates  fell  on  the  rural 
land,  it  is  in  the  long  run,  a  sheer,  unmixed,  undiluted  gift 
to  the  landlord."  That  is  the  statement  which  I  wish  to 
place  on  record,  and  a  most  important  statement  it  is.  It 
becomes  the  habit  of  honourable  gentlemen  to  refer  to  the 
statements  of  the  right  honourable  Member  for  Midlothian 
in  1853.  "  There  is  a  point  I  want  to  notice  in  the  speech 
of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  because  he  did  me  the 
honour  to  refer  to  a  speech  made  by  me  in  1853  on  the  subject 
of  the  Income  tax,  and  he  has  founded  on  that  reference  to 
my  speech  a  case  of  grievance  for  the  land.  These  are  the 
circumstances  in  which  I  endeavoured  to  show  that  land  under 
Schedule  A  pays  more  than  sevenpence  in  the  pound,  and  that 
the  burden  upon  it  is  greater  than  it  is  commonly  supposed 
to  be.  My  right  honourable  friend  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  reminds  me  it  might  be  urged  that  has  been 
redressed  by  the  contribution.  If  we  are  to  speak  of  that,  I 
will  say  in  my  opinion  it  has  been  a  great  deal  more  than 
redressed  by  that  contribution.  The  fact  is  that  while  realty 
has  received  an  enormous  boon  at  the  expense  of  the  Con- 
sohdated  Fund — a  boon  of  which  the  whole  in  the  case  of  rural 
land  goes  to  the  landlord,  and  of  which  a  large  part,  not  the 
whole,  in  the  case  of  land  not  rural  goes  to  the  landlord — 
while  that  boon  has  been  given  to  the  landlords  of  the  country 
in  rural  and  urban  districts  and  is  a  charge  on  the  Con- 
sohdated  Fund,  a  compensation  has  been  given  to  the  Con- 
solidated Fund  in  return,  which  is,  I  believe  I  am  right  in 
saying,  a  few  hundred  odd  thousands.  The  question  between 
the  rates  and  the  Consolidated  Fund  is  not  a  settled  question. 
No  proper  equivalent,  no  fair  and  proper  consideration,  has 
been  given  to  the  Consolidated  Ftmd  by  a  readjustment  of 
taxation  in  respect  of  that  enormous  boon  which  has  been 
handed    over    to    the    rates ;    and    a    further    and    larger 


HARCOURT  295 

change  than  has  yet  been  made  in  the  death  duties  is,  in  my 
opinion,  a  matter  of  absolute  necessity  on  the  plainest  grounds 
of  justice  before  Parliament  will  have  fuUy  vindicated  its 
character  as  a  just  distributor  of  benefits  and  burdens  among 
the  several  classes  of  the  community." 

The  landlords  have  received  satisfaction  in  respect  of  rates, 
and  it  is  time  we  should  equaHse  the  rates.  The  other  objec- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  landed  interest  is  one,  the  truth  of  which 
I  most  absolutely  acknowledge.  They^say  that  agricultural 
land  has  fallen  in  value  and  also  the  income.  That  is  unfor- 
tunately true,  but  it  is  on  that  diminished  income,  and  on  that 
alone,  that  the  tax  will  be  placed.  They  will  have  to  pay 
upon  what  they  have,  and  not  upon  what  they  have  not.  I 
have  endeavoured  to  show  the  House  how  small  that  amount 
will  be,  but  we  have  examples — I  do  not  say  wisely — brought 
forward  as  exceptions  to  the  great  principles  of  finance  of  the 
inconvenience  which  may  fall  on  particular  persons  and  in 
particular  cases.  The  honourable  member  for  the  West 
Derby  Division  of  Liverpool  brought  forward  the  case  of  the 
estate  of  Savemake,  and  remarked  upon  what  difficulty  the 
present  owner  of  Savemake  would  be  placed  in  by  this  legisla- 
tion. But  we  cannot  found  legislation  in  finance  of  this  char- 
acter upon  the  difficulties  of  an  estate  in  the  condition  of 
Savemake.  The  right  honourable  member  for  Sleaford  came 
forward,  and  he  passed  an  eulogium  upon  an  estate  in  exactly 
the  opposite  category — an  eulogium  in  which  I  desire  to  asso- 
ciate myself — the  great  estate  of  Chatsworth,  which  has  been 
administered  for  generations  in  a  manner  to  the  advantage 
of  its  possessors  and  of  the  country.  But  when  he  tells  me 
that  taxation  of  this  character  is  going  to  destroy  the  magnifi- 
cent fortune  of  Chatsworth,  that  is  an  argument  that  carries 
little  weight  with  me. 

Mr.  Chaplin  :  The  right  honourable  gentleman  entirely 
misrepresents  me.  I  did  speak  of  Chatsworth,  but  I  merely 
mentioned  Chatsworth  as  a  type  of  a  great  number  of  others 
which  it  resembled. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  I  am  very  glad  to 
hear  that  Chatsworth  represents  a  great  many  other  estates, 
because,  if  so,  the  landed  interest  is  not  so  badly  off.  But 
a  still  more  extraordinary  argument  was  used  by  the  right 
honourable  gentleman  (Mr.  Balfour)  just  now.     He  said  that 


296  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Holland  House,  under  these  circumstances,  might  be  driven 
to  be  turned  into  a  building  estate.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that 
a  good  deal  of  Holland  House,  as  I  first  recollect  it,  has  been, 
without  this  Bill.  But  you  cannot  deal  with  broad  questions 
of  finance — 

'  •  Mr.  Balfour  :  I  did  not  use  that  as  an  argument  in  favour 
of  the  owner  of  HoUand  House,  but  as  an  argument  in 
favour  of  the  pubhc.  It  was  a  pubhc  loss. 
•  The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  If  turning  any  of 
Holland  House  into  a  building  estate  was  a  public  loss,  a  great 
deal  of  it  has  been  lost  already  since  I  first  came  to  London. 
But  you  cannot  deal  with  great  questions  of  finance  by  con- 
siderations of  particulars  of  this  character.  But,  Sir,  I  observe 
in  aU  these  debates,  though  you  put  forward  Savemake, 
Chatsworth,  and  Holland  House,  there  is  one  class  of  land- 
owners who  have  prudently  kept  in  the  background — namely, 
the  great  owners  of  ground  values.  It  is  upon  them,  as  they 
know  perfectly  well,  that  the  chief  burden  of  this  taxation 
will  fall,  and  therefore  they  have  put  forward  the  case  of 
every  other  class  first — the  yeoman  farmer,  the  licensed 
victualler,  or  the  mined  brewer.  There  is  an  idea  in  private 
circles,  I  beUeve,  that  there  are  dukes  who  expect  that  they 
may  lose  milUons  of  money  over  this  system,  and,  if  so,  I 
suppose  it  is  because  there  wiU  be  miUions  to  meet  the  demand. 
That  brings  me  to  the  question  of  graduation.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman,  the  leader  of  the  Opposition,  com- 
menced his  speech  this  evening  by  criticising  the  fact  that  I, 
as  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  had  a  colleague  in  Lord 
Rosebery  who  favoured  all  the  schemes  I  brought  forward. 
I  am  sorry  I  cannot  congratulate  him  in  return  on  having 
treated  his  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  in  the  same  favourable 
manner.  The  right  honourable  member  for  St.  George's, 
Hanover  Square,  when  he  was  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
denounced  the  principle  of  graduation  in  the  strongest  terms, 
and  appUed  to  it  such  words  as  "  plunder  "  and  "  fiscal  rob- 
bery," and  he  reproached  me,  his  unworthy  pupil,  with  being 
ignorant  of  the  elementary  principles  of  political  economy. 
He  quoted  something  from  the  works  of  Sir  Louis  Mallet, 
and  he  told  me  that  no  great  economist  had  ever  been  in  favour 
of  graduation.  He  even  went  so  far  as  to  refer  to  John  Stuart 
Mill  as  an   authority  for  that  statement.     I  certainly  was 


HARCOURT  297 

surprised  that  he  was  so  ignorant  of  the  fundamental  differ- 
ence of  taxation  which  would  arise  from  the'  system  of  gradua- 
tion duties  and  the  income  tax  respectively  that  he  did  not 
even  realise  that  one  was  a  tax  paid  by  the  Uving  and  the  other 
a  tax  levied  upon  the  dead.  I  will  now  read  you  passages 
from  some  authorities  in  support  of  our  scheme  to  impose 
additional  death  duties.  The  passage  from  Mill's  book  is  as 
follows  :  • ,  • 

The  principle  of  graduation,  as  it  has  been  called — that  is  the  levying 
of  a  higher  percentage  on  larger  sums — though  its  application  to  general 
taxation  would  be  a  violation  of  first  principles,  is  quite  unobjection- 
able as  applied  to  legacies  and  inheritances.  I  conceive  inheritances 
and  legacies  exceeding  a  certain  amount  to  be  a  highly  proper  subject 
of  taxation,  and  that  the  revenue  from  them  should  be  as  great  as  it 
can  be  made  without  giving  rise  to  evasion. 

There  was  a  passage  referred  to  the  other  night  by  my 
honourable  friend  the  member  for  Aberdeen,  where  Adam 
Smith,  after  referring  to  the  necessaries  and  luxuries  of  Ufe, 
said  it  was  not  unreasonable  that  the  rich  should  contribute 
not  only  in  proportion  to  their  revenue  but  something  more 
than  that  proportion.  Is  that  not  the  principle  of  graduation  ? 
What  was  the  proposal  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
with  regard  to  house  duties  but  graduation  on  a  lower  scale  ? 
The  right  honourable  gentleman,  I  think,  before  he  under- 
takes to  assail  the  principle  of  graduation,  should  be  a  little 
more  careful  in  the  citing  of  his  authorities  and  a  Uttle  more 
careful  in  quoting  them.  But  is  graduation  to  be  condemned 
on  another  ground  ?  The  right  honourable  gentleman  has 
never  been  so  insulted  as  by  my  quoting  the  case  of  the  Aus- 
tralian colonies.  He  says  that  the  land  ruined  by  Australian 
mutton  is  now  to  be  wiped  out  by  Australian  finance.  That 
is  the  language  of  the  Imperial  party.  These  are  the  advocates 
of  the  federation  of  the  Empire.  Is  he  going  to  keep  out 
Australian  mutton,  which  gives  cheap  food  to  the  working 
classes  ?  Why  should  he  have  such  a  contempt  for  Austra- 
han  finance  ?  Land  is  the  principal  capital  of  Austraha,  and 
their  experience  in  deaUng  with  it  is  very  valuable.  They 
have  great  advantages  there  wliich  we  have  not  in  England. 
There  land  is  free  from  fetters,  and  you  may  depend  upon  it 
that  day  by  day  the  people  of  this  country  will  become  more 
desirous  that  land  should  be  treated  as  land  is  treated  in 
Australia — exactly  on  the  same  footing  as  personal  property. 


298  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

The  sneers  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  at  AustraUa 
will  come  home  to  roost.  Very  often  smart  sayings  are  very 
foolish  things.  I  have  a  little  refreshed  the  memory  of  the 
right  honourable  gentleman  as  to  the  views  of  the  doctors 
of  political  economy  upon  the  question  of  graduation.  I 
confess  myself  that  I  do  not  abide  altogether  by  the  dogmas 
of  the  professors  upon  this  question.  As  on  the  bimetallic 
controversy,  when  I  find  all  the  professors  on  one  side  and  all 
the  men  of  business  on  the  other,  I  follow  the  men  of  business. 
In  this  case,  with  regard  to  graduation,  you  do  not  want  the 
professors  to  teach  you  whether  men  of  immense  fortune,  like 
ground  landlords,  or  whether  millionaire  brewers  should  pay 
something  more  pro  rata  than  the  small  struggling  man  of 
narrow  means.  That  question  will  not  be  settled  by  the  pro- 
fessors ;  it  will  be  settled  by  the  common-sense  and  justice 
of  the  community  at  large.  The  right  honourable  gentleman 
said  he  did  not  absolutely  commit  his  party  against  graduation, 
but  for  fear  that  should  not  take  effect,  the  right  honourable 
member  for  Sleaford  got  up,  hammered  the  nail  in,  and  pro- 
nounced graduation  to  be  anathema  maranatha  ;  but  the  right 
honourable  member  for  St.  George's  seemed  a  Uttle  timid 
and  did  not  pronounce  quite  in  the  same  sense.  If  my  prede- 
cessor and  my  successor  hold  these  views  on  graduation,  that 
will  go  a  long  way  to  settle  the  question.  But  there  are  other 
political  forces  in  this  country,  and  I  should  Hke  to  know  what 
the  views  of  Birmingham  are  upon  this  subject.  Graduation 
is  now  part  of  the  authorised  programme  of  the  Liberal  party  ; 
but  it  was  part  also  of  the  famous  Unauthorised  Programme. 
These  were  once  the  views  of  Birmingham  upon  this 
question  : — 

In  ray  opinion,  there  is  only  one  way  in  which  this  injustice  of  the 
incidence  of  taxation — this  injustice  of  the  greater  weight  of  taxation 
upon  the  poor — can  properly  be  remedied  ;  and  that  is  by  a  scheme 
of  graduated  taxation,  a  taxation  which  increases  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  property  taxed.  It  need  not  necessarily  be  a  graduated 
income  tax  ;  it  might  be  more  convenient  to  levy  it  in  the  form  of  a 
graduated  death  tax.  I  do  not  care  anything  at  all  about  the  method  ; 
all  I  want  to  offer  for  your  serious  consideration  is  the  principle  of  such 
taxation  ;  in  my  opinion  it  is  the  only  principle  of  taxation  fair  and  just 
to  all  classes  of  the  community. 

Now,  Sir,  I  should  hke  to  know,  comparing  that  with  the  speech 
which  we  heard  the  other  night  from  the  right  honourable 


HARCOURT  299 

member  for  St.  George's,  which  of  these  two  conflicting  authori- 
ties is  in  the  future  to  govern  coalition  finance  ?  Which  is 
to  be  the  "  predominant  partner  "  in  that  mixed  concern  ? 
Then  the  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite  sets  up  two 
totally  inconsistent  arguments.  He  says  that  the  death  duty 
will  be  "  evaded,"  but  as  a  future  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
he  retracts  that  offensive  word  and  says  it  will  be  avoided. 
There  was  a  time  when  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
denounced  settlements  as  a  fraud  upon  the  Exchequer.  If  the 
duties  are  going  to  be  avoided  there  can  be  no  hardship,  and  if 
they  are  paid  they  will  not  be  avoided  ;  you  cannot  have  it 
both  ways.  The  right  honourable  gentleman  put  a  most 
extraordinary  case — the  case  of  the  duty  being  at  the  highest 
possible  rate.  What  is  the  highest  possible  rate  under  the 
present  proposal  ?  It  is  18  per  cent.  What  is  it  at  present  ? 
It  is  14  per  cent.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  me  that  if  the  duties  are 
not  evaded  at  14  per  cent.,  they  will  be  totally  evaded  because 
it  is  raised  to  18  per  cent.  ? 

Mr.  GoscHEN  :     Aggregate  values  ? 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  Aggregate  values. 
We  at  least  have  placed  this  principle  of  graduation  before  the 
country  as  a  just  system  of  taxation.  We  have  placed  it 
before  the  country  and  we  have  placed  it  before  the  House 
to-night  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  Liberal  finance.  If 
you  get  rid  of  this  Budget,  you  will  not  get  rid  of  the  principle 
of  graduation.  It  will  survive  the  factious  combinations  of 
to-night.  If  you  desire  to  go  to  the  country  against  the  prin- 
ciple of  graduation,  we  are  ready  to  meet  you.  You  have 
before  you  a  future  of  ever-increasing  expenditure,  demands 
not  only  for  the  Army  and  Navy,  but  for  every  kind  of  social 
reform.  You  will  have  increased  taxation,  and  you  will  find 
that  these  vast  fortunes  cannot  refuse  to  bear  their  share 
proportionate  to  their  abihty  to  endure  the  burden.  And  I 
will  venture  upon  this  prediction.  You  may  have  to  accept, 
and  you  very  Ukely  will  yourselves  propose,  provisions  less 
moderate  than  those  contained  in  this  BiU.  You  have  done 
that  before.  What  has  the  right  honourable  gentleman  said 
upon  the  subject  of  the  income  tax  ?  Here,  again,  we  have, 
I  won't  say  the  advantage,  we  have  the  disadvantage  of  being 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the 
member  for  St.   George's.     Here,   again,   the  leader  of  the 


300  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Opposition  took  the  extraordinary  course  of  throwing  overboard 
his  own  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  The  very  strongest 
part  of  the  speech  of  the  right  honourable  member  for  St. 
George's  was  his  denunciation  of  what  we  had  done  in  the 
Budget — that  is  to  say  to  extend  the  hmit  and  to  enlarge  the 
abatement.  He  said  it  was  destructive  of  the  income  tax, 
and  he  denounced  it  in  the  most  vehement  language.  And  at 
the  very  beginning  of  his  speech  the  leader  of  the  Opposition 
says  that  is  the  part  of  the  Budget  of  which  he  most  approves. 
The  right  honourable  gentleman  said  and  the  leader  of  the 
Opposition  repeated  it,  that  I  had  voted  against  that  proposal. 
The  right  honourable  member  for  St.  George's  "  told  "  against 
that  proposal  in  that  division,  but  he  did  not  "  tell "  me,  and  in 
that  he  was  mistaken.  But  of  all  the  charges  brought  against 
me  by  the  member  for  St.  George's  the  most  vehement,  I 
think,  was  that  which  he  made  against  me  in  reference  to  this 
extension  of  the  abatement.  But,  Sir,  the  ground  on  which 
we  have  proceeded,  the  ground  which  the  right  honourable 
gentleman  denounced  as  mischievous,  socialistic,  and  destruc- 
tive of  the  income  tax,  was  thus  described  by  the  financier 
whom  he  was  then  opposing.  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  referred 
to  the  hardships  endured  by  one  portion  of  the  trading 
classes — the  strugghng  professional  men  and  the  struggling 
tradesmen — upon  whom  the  income  tax  pressed  most 
severely.  He  said  that,  "  in  reply  to  official  inquiries 
which  he  had  made  he  had  been  informed  that  those 
who  would  profit  most  by  the  revision  were  a  very  large 
number  of  clergy,  ministers  of  all  reUgious  denominations,  a 
large  number  of  officers  in  the  Army  and  Navy,  a  large  portion 
of  the  Civil  Service — strugghng  men  in  all  positions,  some  of 
whom  were  just  getting  their  heads  above  water — many  trades- 
men, and  the  widows  and  single  daughters  of  all  these  classes." 
The  right  honourable  gentleman  denounced  that  policy  and 
divided  against  it. 

Mr.  GoscHEN  :  That  was  the  policy  of  the  right  honourable 
member  for  Midlothian. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  That  may  be ; 
but  we  have  had  experience  of  it  for  eighteen  years.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman  is  of  the  same  opinion  now,  and  he 
denounces  it  still.  If  you  defeat  this  Budget  every  one  of 
those  classes  will  lose  this  advantage. 


HARCOURT  301 

Mr.  Balfour  :    The  right  honourable  gentleman  did  not 
hear  my  speech  evidently. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  I  heard  the  right 
honourable  gentleman's  speech,  but  is  the  right  honourable 
member  for  St.  George's  to  be  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
of  the  party  opposite  ?  It  is  impossible  for  a  man  to  have 
pledged  himself  more  definitely  against  this  principle.  There 
are  three  doctrines  of  finance.  There  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
leader  of  the  Opposition  ;  there  is  the  doctrine  of  what  we  may 
call  the  future  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  ;  and  there  is 
the  Birmingham  doctrine  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with 
either.  This  is  the  one  great  crime  I  have  committed  with 
reference  to  the  income  tax.  I  have  proposed  these  exemp- 
tions. I  do  not  know  whether  you  mean  to  go  to  the  country 
against  those  exemptions.  But  there  is  one  exemption 
against  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman  did  not  protest 
— one  compensation  under  the  income  tax — and  that  was  the 
grant  to  the  landowners.  He  had  nothing  to  say  against  that. 
Well,  it  is  a  little  characteristic,  the  way  in  which  that  com- 
pensation has  been  received.  Up  to  this  time,  we  have 
always  been  told  that  it  was  an  enormous  loss  to  the  landed 
interest,  this  distinction  under  Schedule  A — that  it  far  more 
than  outweighed  the  advantages  they  derived  under  it.  The 
moment  it  is  given,  they  say  "  Thank  you  for  nothing  "  ;  they 
put  the  money  into  their  pockets,  and  are  not  even  thankful. 
The  landed  interest  may  behave  in  this  way,  but  the  reUef 
is  not  so  regarded  by  the  owners  of  small  house  property.  I 
have  received  letters  from  all  parts  of  the  country  most  grateful 
for  the  concession  made.  There  was  a  small  man  who  said 
he  had  put  his  earnings  into  house  property,  and  he  wrote 
"  The  news  is  too  good  to  be  true.  I  am  told  we  are  to  have 
10  per  cent,  upon  house  property."  I  wrote  to  him  and  said  : 
Dear  Sir, — The  news  is  better  than  you  beUeve,  because  you 
are  to  have  16  per  cent."  The  most  important  part  of  all  is 
the  treatment  which  the  small  properties  will  gain  under  this 
Bill.  I  have  always  regarded  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
the  leader  of  the  Opposition  as  the  great  apostle  of  the  gospel 
of  wealth.  These  considerations  he  below  his  poUtical  horizon  ; 
but  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  effect  of  this  Budget  upon 
small  property.  While  it  provides  for  a  permanent  increase 
of  more  than  £4,000,000  in  the  national  resources,  it  makes  no 


302  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

increase,  but  a  decrease,  on  the  different  classes  of  persons 
owning  under  £1,000.  Taking  the  death  duties  alone,  there  is 
a  decrease  upon  taxation  of  this  class,  and  taking  the  death 
duties  and  the  income  tax  together  there  is  a  much  larger 
decrease.  Properties  under  £1,000  pay  to  the  existing  death 
duties  upwards  of  £300,000  a  year,  while  under  the  new  sys- 
tem, with  legacy  and  succession  duty  swept  away,  with  the 
single  equal  duty  of  1  per  cent,  up  to  £500  and  2  per  cent,  up 
to  £1,000,  they  will  pay  about  £200,000  per  year.  I  say 
nothing  about  the  saving  of  expense  and  trouble  by  extending 
the  facihties  from  properties  of  £300  to  properties  of  £1,000. 
It  comes  to  this — that  the  measure  will  have  the  effect  of 
increasing  the  death  duties  as  a  whole  by  one-third,  and  at 
the  same  time  of  reducing  by  one-third  the  payments  of  these 
small  people.  Under  the  head  of  personalty  alone,  there  are 
no  fewer  than  39,000  of  these  small  estates  out  of  a  total  of 
51,000  in  1892-3.  The  reduction  is  not  so  large  on  the  death 
duties,  but  it  is  much  larger  upon  the  income  tax.  I  would 
Mke  to  give  a  typical  case — that  of  a  man  dying  with  personalty 
worth  £500.  Take  the  case  of  a  small  tenant  farmer  leaving 
£500,  or  a  small  shop-keeper  or  clerk  leaving  a  similar  sum. 
At  present  such  a  property  pays  a  minimum  duty  of  £10,  and 
it  may,  under  the  legacy  duty,  have  to  pay  as  much  as  £59. 
In  future,  under  the  Government  proposals,  it  will  pay  £5  only, 
and  under  no  circumstances  will  it  have  to  pay  more.  Surely 
this  will  be  a  great  benefit  and  boon  to  an  enormous  proportion 
of  the  population.  Now  I  will  touch  upon  the  death  duties. 
What  may  reasonably  be  taken  to  be  the  income  of  a  man, 
who  leaves  a  capital  sum  of  £500,  the  result  of  his  personal 
exertions  ?  We  may  take  it  to  be  £200  a  year.  He  will  gain 
under  the  Budget  provisions  £1  6s.  8d.  a  year  on  his  income 
tax,  so  that  he  will  be  able  to  discharge  in  four  years  all  the 
Uability  of  his  property  under  the  death  duties.  Depend  upon 
it  that  the  country  is  going  to  judge  between  us.  There  are 
things  more  cared  for  in  the  country  than  Savemake  or  Chats- 
worth.  In  the  case  of  realty,  we  come  to  the  same  holdings 
of  £500  value,  which  is  a  very  common  kind  of  property. 
Taking  the  least  favourable  case,  such  a  property  left  by  a  man 
to  his  son  aged  forty-four  will,  imder  the  Budget  scheme, 
never  pay  more  than  £5.  The  Budget,  while  it  confers  a 
great  boon  to  the  farmers  in  respect  of  their  stock,  lessens  the 


HARCOURT  303 

amount  of  the  income  tax  they  will  have  to  pay.  I  have  to 
apologise  to  the  House  for  having  occupied  their  time  for  so 
long,  but  I  have  endeavoured  to  draw  their  attention,  not  to 
the  paltry  details  of  the  Bill,  not  to  the  anticipations  with 
which  the  right  honourable  gentleman  has  filled  so  much  of 
his  speech,  but  with  regard  to  which  I  think  that  the  authori- 
ties of  the  Inland  Revenue,  by  whom  I  am  advised,  know  a 
great  deal  more  than  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
as  to  the  methods  and  the  possibilities  of  carr5ring  them  into 
operation,  but  to  the  great  principles  of  the  Bill.  I  am  glad 
that  by  the  help  of  the  right  honourable  gentleman  the  member 
for  St.  George's  this  question  has  been  extracted  from  the 
chicane  of  paltry  details,  and  has  been  reduced  to  a  conflict 
on  fundamental  principles,  and  that  we  have  at  last  come  to  a 
clear  issue  on  conflicting  principles  of  finance.  Given  the 
necessity  for  raising  large  sums  for  increased  defence,  how  is 
the  money  to  be  got  ?  We  affirm  and  you  deny  that  the 
powerful  and  wealthy  interests  should  make  a  further  contribu- 
tion. Secondly,  we  affirm  and  you  deny  that  for  the  pur- 
poses of  the  death  duties  realty  and  personalty  should  be 
treated  alike. 

Mr.  Balfour  :    No,  I  did  not. 

The  Chanceller  of  the  Exchequer  :  Then  why  do  you 
want  to  throw  out  the  Budget  ?  We  affirm  and  you  deny — 
I  do  not  know  which  of  you  is  going  to  deny — that  taking  a 
moderate  system  of  graduation,  immense  wealth  should  pay 
at  a  higher  rate  than  smaller  estates.  That  is  a  clear  issue. 
We  affirm  and  you  deny — it  remains  to  be  seen  how  long  you 
will  venture  to  deny — that  if  great  expenditure  requires  a 
high  rate  of  income  tax,  the  burden  should  fall  more  lightly  on 
the  humbler  incomes ;  and  until  the  late  First  Lord  of  the 
Treasury  and  the  late  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  (Mr. 
Balfour  and  Mr.  Goschen  were  sitting  side  by  side  on  the  front 
Opposition  bench)  can  make  up  their  minds  on  the  subject 
of  finance,  you  are  not  entitled  to  throw  out  the  Budget. 
These  are  clear  issues  which  try  the  principles  of  the  Tory 
party. 

Mr.  Balfour  :     No,  they  do  not. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  :  If  I  may  use  a 
vulgar  expression,  I  would  venture  to  say  that  you  are  begin- 
ning to  see  that  it  is  not  safe  to  face  the  music.     Against  these 


304  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

principles  you  array  yourselves  to-night.  I  know  not  whether 
that  strange  combination  which  you  have  entered  into  with 
those  to  whom,  on  vital  questions,  you  are  most  opposed, 
will  assist  you  to-night.  But,  if  you  should  defeat  this  Budget, 
you  will  not  defeat  the  principles  on  which  it  is  founded,  those 
principles  being  based  on  equal  taxation  adjusted  to  the  capa- 
city of  the  various  classes  to  bear  the  burden.  We  challenge 
the  vote  of  the  House  of  Commons  to-night,  and  when  the  time 
comes  we  shall  ask  the  judgment  of  the  country. 


THE  DUKE  OF  DEVONSHIRE 

When  Lord  Hartington  sat  in  the  House  of  Commons,  he  sel- 
dom took  much  trouble  to  prepare  himself  for  any  debate. 
But  he  knew  what  occasions  were  really  important,  and  when 
they  happened  they  did  not  find  him  at  a  loss.  No  one,  for 
instance,  could  have  delivered  a  better  defence  than  he  did 
of  the  policy  which  regarded  Afghanistan  as  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  frontier  which  the  masters  of  India  had  to  guard.  His 
first  official  speech  after  he  had  taken  ofiice  as  Secretary  of 
State  for  India  in  1880  was  a  most  powerful  and  cogent  plea 
for  the  evacuation  of  Candahar,  and  for  the  recognition  of 
Abdul  Rahman  as  the  ruler  of  a  united  Afghanistan.  It  was 
characteristic  of  Lord  Hartington  that  he  did  not  give  con- 
tinuous attention  to  the  development  and  history  of  questions, 
but  that  he  put  off  getting  them  up  until  they  were  ripe  for 
Parliamentary  treatment.  Then  he  brought  his  mind  to  bear 
upon  them,  and  showed  his  facility  of  concentration  by  master- 
ing their  essence  without  wasting  time  over  irrelevant  details. 
Great  subjects,  such  as  Home  Rule  and  Tariff  Reform,  roused 
aU  his  energy  and  capacity.  At  ordinary  times  he  was  content 
to  handle  the  topics  which  came  before  him  with  the  amount 
of  force  required  to  explain  them,  and  put  them  in  a  clear  light. 
He  had  the  gift,  not  always  possessed  by  the  most  distinguished 
advocates,  of  picking  out  the  strong  arguments  for  a  case,  and 
leaving  the  weak  arguments  alone.  This  particular  art  has 
not  perhaps  received  aU  the  consideration  it  deserves.  There 
is  no  surer  method  of  saving  time  and  economising  labo\ir. 
It  is  frequently,  though  fallaciously,  assumed  that  the  strength 
of  a  position  may  be  measured  by  the  number  of  reasons  which 
can  be  given  in  its  support.  Even  those  who  do  not  assume 
that  all  reasons  are  equally  good,  are  too  apt  to  estimate  the 
cogency  of  a  plea  by  the  copiousness  of  its  justification. 

20 — (2171)  305 


306  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

The  Home  Rule  Bill  of  1886 

The  Marquis  of  Hartington,  in  rising  to  move  "  That 
the  Bill  be  read  a  second  time  this  day  six  months," 
said — 

Mr.  Speaker,  in  moving  the  amendment  of  which  I  have 
given  notice,  I  shall  have  to  ask  something  more  than  the 
usual  indulgence  of  the  House.  The  House  knows  that  it  is 
not  an  easy  or  an  agreeable  task  to  follow  in  debate  my  right 
honourable  friend  who  has  just  sat  down  (Mr.  Gladstone). 
During  my  long  experience  in  this  House  it  has  never 
hitherto  been  my  painful  lot  to  have  to  do  so.  I  have 
very  frequently  very  far  from  envied  those  who  had 
to  take  that  part,  and  I  feel  now  more  convinced  than 
I  have  ever  done  before  that  this  can  never  be  an 
easy  task,  and  especially  I  feel  it  when  I  have  to  follow 
a  speech  in  which  argument  has  been  mingled  to  a  considerable 
extent  with  statement,  and  when  the  provisions  of  a  measure 
which  has  now  been  before  us  for  a  month  have  been,  as  far  as 
I  can  understand  it,  very  considerably  modified.  I  shall 
endeavour  to  refer  to  those  points  by  and  by  ;  but  before  I 
come  to  the  reasons  which  I  shall  give  for  moving  the  amend- 
ment of  which  I  have  given  notice,  I  shall  detain  the  House 
for  only  a  very  few  moments  by  some  observations  with  the 
smallest  approach  to  a  controversial  character  upon  my  right 
honourable  friend's  speech.  My  right  honourable  friend  said 
in  the  early  portion  of  his  speech,  that  he  had  asked  himself 
the  question  whether  Home  Rule  was  compatible  with  the 
unity  of  the  Empire,  and  he  considered  that  that  question  had 
received  a  final  and  authoritative  answer.  And  what  was  that 
answer  ?  The  question  was  settled  in  his  mind  by  a  speech 
made  on  the  first  day  of  the  session  by  the  honourable  member 
for  Cork  (Mr.  Parnell),  who  said  that  all  he  wanted  for  Ireland 
was  autonomy,  or  the  management  of  her  own  affairs.  Now, 
Sir,  is  this  great  question,  which  has  long  been  perplexing  the 
mind  of  my  right  honourable  friend,  to  be  solved  by  a  single 
sentence  spoken  in  debate  for  a  manifest  and  obvious  purpose 
by  the  Leader  of  the  Irish  National  Party,  when  that  sentence 
is  in  direct  contradiction  to  almost  everything  that  he  and  his 
friends  have  hitherto  said,  and  to  the  repeated  assurances 
which  they  have  given  us  that  they  were  working,  and  would 


DEVONSHIRE  307 

work  for,  and  would  be  satisfied  with  nothing  but  complete 
separation  ?  Did  the  honourable  member  for  Cork  ever  use 
the  words  "  severance  of  the  last  link,"  or  "  complete  independ- 
ence," or  did  he  ever  say  that  no  bounds  were  to  be  set  to  the 
aspirations  of  the  Irish  nation  ?  I  have  not  got  the  honour- 
able member's  speeches  here  ;  but  I  ask  every  one  who  has 
studied  those  speeches,  whether  the  honourable  member  has 
ever  stopped  short  of  advocating  for  Ireland  complete  inde- 
pendence— (Several  honourable  members  :  Legislative  Inde- 
pendence)— and  its  restoration  to  a  place  among  the  nations  of 
Europe.  Well,  Sir,  I  must  say  that  I  think  that  the  answer 
which  my  right  honourable  friend  has  obtained  to  his  doubts 
upon  the  subject  of  the  compatibility  of  Home  Rule  with  a 
united  Empire  is  an  unsatisfactory  and  an  incomplete  one. 
My  right  honourable  friend  has  said  that  the  Government  are 
charged  with  experimenting  upon  this  great  question  ;  and 
the  definition  he  gave  of  experimenting  in  politics  was  that  of 
treating  grave  questions  without  grave  causes.  I  do  not  deny 
that  there  may  be  grave  causes,  and  that  this  is  a  grave  ques- 
tion ;  but  I  should  rather  be  inclined  to  define  experimenting 
in  politics  as  treating  grave  questions  for  grave  causes,  but 
without  grave  and  mature  consideration.  Whatever  may  be 
the  consideration  which  my  right  honourable  friend  may  have 
given  himself  to  this  policy  and  his  measure,  it  is  certain  that 
the  country  and  its  representatives  have  had  no  sufficient 
opportunity  of  forming  their  judgment  or  giving  their  decision 
upon  it.  And  it  is  also  equally  notorious  that,  with  very  few 
exceptions,  the  colleagues  of  my  right  honourable  friend,  up 
to  the  moment  of  their  joining  the  present  Government,  had 
formed  opinions  and  expressed  opinions  upon  the  question 
of  Ireland,  I  will  not  say  diametrically  opposed  to,  but  cer- 
tainly very  little  in  harmony  with,  the  policy  of  the  Prime 
Minister.  Sir,  I  do  not  know  why  my  right  honourable  friend 
should  be  disturbed  at  his  policy  being  termed  an  experiment. 
That,  in  my  opinion,  is  not  the  worst  that  can  be  said  about  it, 
for  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  bad,  it  must,  at  all 
events,  be  admitted  that  it  is  a  novel  experiment ;  for  never, 
I  believe,  in  the  history  of  the  world — certainly  never  in  our 
own  history — has  the  attempt  been  made  to  carry  on  the 
government  of  a  country  upon  any  such  system  as  that  which 
is  now  proposed  for  Ireland.     I  am  not  going  into  details  ; 


308  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

I  went  into  them  at  too  great  a  length  the  other  night ;  but  I 
venture  to  say  there  is  no  precedent  for  a  great  part  of  this 
scheme,  or  the  pohcy  which  is  the  foundation  of  it.  It  is,  as 
I  have  before  said,  concocted  from  various  precedents  and 
examples  ;  but  there  is  no  precedent  which  bears,  with  an 
approach  to  accuracy,  upon  the  case  that  is  before  us.  I  say, 
whether  it  be  good  or  bad,  this  is  a  policy  which  can  be  nothing 
but  an  experiment,  and  can  only  be  ultimately  judged  by  its 
results.  Sir,  I  was  astonished  to  hear  my  right  honourable 
friend  throw  some  ridicule  upon  the  policy  which  has  been 
pursued  in  past  times  by  Governments  of  which  he  has  himself 
been  a  member — I  think  he  was  a  member — but  at  all  events 
by  Ministers  for  whom  he  entertained  a  high  respect.  That 
policy  he  designated  as  the  policy  of  "  judicious  mixture." 
He  stated  several  cases  in  which  a  measure  of  a  conciliatory 
character  had  been  accompanied  by  a  measure  of  coercion, 
or  in  which  a  measure  of  coercion  had  been  accompanied  or 
followed  by  a  measure  of  conciliation.  I  do  not  think  that  any 
Minister  or  any  Government  ever  admitted  that  these  measures 
either  of  repression  or  of  conciliation  were  proposed  on  any 
principle  of  judicious  mixture.  Each  of  those  measures  was 
proposed  because  the  Government  thought  it  a  measure  of 
justice  or  a  measure  of  necessity.  Catholic  emancipation, 
my  right  honourable  friend  is  fond  of  reminding  us,  was  not 
conceded  as  a  measure  of  justice,  but  it  was  conceded  under 
the  threat  of  civil  war.  But  the  other  reforms  to  which  he 
has  referred  to-night,  and  especially  those  which  he  carried 
himself,  the  Disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church  and  the  two 
Land  Acts,  were  measures  which  we  had  always  thought  were 
inspired  by  a  desire  to  do  justice  to  the  people  of  Ireland,  and 
were  not  administered  on  any  principle  of  counterpoise  or 
judicious  mixture.  On  the  other  hand,  if  there  have  been 
measures  of  repression,  they  have  been  proposed  from  time 
to  time  by  former  Ministers  and  by  my  right  honourable  friend 
himself,  because  they  believed  that  they  were  measures  of 
absolute  necessity,  which  did  not  alter  the  spirit,  the  intention, 
or  the  scope  of  the  law,  and  which  were  only  necessary  to  enable 
the  ordinary  law  to  be  put  into  execution.  As  on  a  former 
occasion,  my  right  honourable  friend  has  denounced  the  Union 
between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  and  the  means  by  which 
it  was  accomplished.     None  of  us,  that  I  am  aware,  approve 


DEVONSHIRE  309 

of  those  means.  I  have  before  admitted  that  I  think  it  pro- 
bable that  the  carrying  of  that  measure  at  that  time  was 
premature.  But  will  anyone — will  my  right  honourable 
friend  himself — say  that  he  beUeves  the  constitution  of  1782 
and  the  relation  between  Ireland  and  Great  Britain  which 
existed  in  1800,  could  have  been  a  constant  permanent  con- 
stitution, or  could  have  been  a  permanent  relation  ?  Will 
he  deny  that  it  was  certain  that  long  before  this  time  that 
constitution  must  have  been  modified  either  in  the  direction 
of  a  more  complete  separation  between  the  two  countries  or 
in  the  direction  of  some  such  Legislative  Union  as  was  effected 
in  1800  ?  My  right  honourable  friend  spoke  of  the  statesmen 
of  the  nineteenth  century  who  are  quoted  as  having  all  been 
opposed  to  the  Repeal  of  the  Union  ;  but  he  was  compelled 
to  admit  that  one  of  the  most  illustrious  of  the  Whig  statesmen 
to  whom  he  alludes  was  Lord  Grey,  and  Lord  Grey,  who  had 
been  a  great  opponent  of  the  Union,  lived  to  be  one  of  the 
strongest  advocates  of  the  Union,  and  one  of  the  strongest 
opponents  of  Repeal,  My  right  honourable  friend  says  that 
those  statesmen  who  thus  supported  the  Union  never  had 
before  them  a  state  of  facts  similar  to  that  with  which  we  have 
to  deal.  I  gather  that  he  refers  to  the  circumstance  that 
until  now  there  has  never  been  an  explicit  Parliamentary 
declaration  that  the  people  of  Ireland  were  in  favour  of  Repeal 
or  in  favour  of  Home  Rule.  But,  Sir,  I  believe  from  all  I  can 
read,  that  the  agitation  of  Mr.  O'Connell  was  one  which, 
although  it  did  not  attain  to  such  large  Parhamentary  pro- 
portions, attained  to  at  least  as  large  national  proportions 
as  the  present  agitation  has  ever  done  ;  that  it  was  supported 
with  as  much  enthusiasm  by  at  least  as  large  a  proportion  of 
the  people  of  Ireland.  And,  undoubtedly,  that  agitation 
enlisted  upon  its  side  a  far  larger  and  a  more  varied  repre- 
sentation of  all  classes  in  Ireland  than  the  Home  Rule  move- 
ment of  later  years  has  done.  My  right  honourable  friend,  in 
the  eloquent  peroration  with  which  he  closed  his  speech,  said 
that  I  have  taken  a  great  responsibility  upon  myself  in  having 
taken  so  prominent  a  part  in  opposition  to  this  measure  ;  and 
he  taunted  the  right  honourable  gentleman  opposite  with 
having  allowed  us  upon  this  side  of  the  House  to  do  most  of 
the  work  in  opposition  to  this  Bill.  I  have  explained  on  a 
former  occasion  why  my  friends  and  I  have  taken  this  course. 


310  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

We  know  that  this  measure  cannot  be  defeated  merely  by  the 
opposition  of  the  Conservative  Party.  We  beheve  that  this 
Bill  is  a  mischievous  measure.  We  believe  that  it  is  not  one 
which  will  heal  the  feud,  the  long  standing  feud,  between  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland.  We  believe  it  does  not  satisfy  any  of  the 
essential  conditions  which  have  been  laid  down  by  my  right 
honourable  friend  himself.  We  believe  it  is  not  a  final  settle- 
ment of  the  question.  We  believe  there  is  nothing  in  this  measure 
which  specially  commends  it,  or  ought  to  commend  it,  to  those 
who  profess  Liberal  principles  ;  and,  holding  these  opinions, 
we,  who  have  the  misfortune  to  differ  from  my  right  honourable 
friend,  and  from  the  great  bulk  of  the  Liberal  Party  which  he 
leads,  have  thought  it  necessary  not  to  conceal  our  opinions, 
not  to  take  a  passive  or  a  neutral  part,  but  to  take  that  part 
which  alone  could  give  effect  to  the  convictions  which  we 
entertain,  and  which  alone,  in  our  judgment,  can  result  in  the 
defeat  of  this  measure,  which  we  believe  to  be  injurious  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  nation.  My  right  honourable  friend  says 
that  we  have  taken  a  great  responsibility  ;  and  he  calls  upon 
me,  now  and  at  once,  and  in  answer  to  his  invitation,  to  state 
what  is  my  policy  for  Ireland.  Sir,  I  can  recollect  no  instance 
in  the  long  and  honourable  political  career  of  my  right  honour- 
able friend  himself  in  which  he  has  taken  the  course  he  now 
calls  upon  me  to  take.  It  has  been,  I  conceive,  the  duty  of 
my  right  honourable  friend  on  various  occasions  to  oppose 
measures  which  he  thought  bad  ;  but  I  do  not  recollect  any 
occasion  on  which  my  right  honourable  friend  in  Opposition 
has  unfolded  a  policy  which  he  was  going  to  propose  as  soon 
as  those  measures  were  rejected.  All  I  can  say  is  that  I 
retract  nothing  of  those  passages  in  my  speeches,  which  my 
right  honourable  friend  has  done  me  the  honour  to  quote  to- 
night. It  is  all  very  well  to  pass  measures  for  the  reconstruction 
of  the  Irish  Government.  Before  Liberal  statesmen  embraced 
the  doctrine  of  Home  Rule  we  heard  a  great  deal  about  the 
necessity  for  a  reform  and  decentralisation  of  the  administra- 
tion. Is  my  right  honourable  friend  prepared  to  say  that  the 
existing  system  of  Government  in  Ireland — the  system  popu- 
larly known  as  Dubhn  Castle,  is  the  best  system  which  can  be 
devised  concurrently  with  the  Legislative  Union  between  the 
two  countries  ?  Although  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  in  what 
direction,  and  in  what  manner,  that  system  can  be  at  once 


DEVONSHIRE  311 

revised,  I  do  believe  that  there  are  many  reforms  which  can 
be  made  in  that  highly  centralised,  but  yet  somewhat  inefficient, 
system  of  Government  which  has  been  for  a  long  time  past 
the  object  of  the  opprobrium,  not  only  of  honourable  members 
calling  themselves  representatives  of  national  feeling,  but  of 
many  representing  other  shades  of  political  opinion.  Sir,  I 
would  reply  to  my  right  honourable  friend  as  my  right  honour- 
able friend  the  member  for  Edinburgh  (Mr.  Goschen)  replied 
to  him  on  a  former  occasion — it  is  not  possible  for  any  man 
now  standing  here  to  say  what  measures  he  is  going  to  apply 
to  Ireland  after  this  Bill  has  been  thrown  out.  Why,  Sir, 
it  depends,  as  my  right  honourable  friend  said,  upon  the  course 
taken  by  the  Irish  people  and  the  leaders  of  the  Irish  people.  We 
have  a  right  to  assume — we  will  assume  until  we  are  forced  to 
assume  the  contrary — that  the  agitation  in  Ireland  will  be  con- 
ducted by  Parliamentary  methods  and  Constitutional  means  ; 
and,  if  that  be  so,  I  do  not  see  why  an  attempt  should  not  be 
made  at  the  gradual  process  of  extension  of  local  self-government 
in  Ireland  to  which  I  referred  in  my  speech  at  Belfast,  and  which 
I  stiU  believe  to  be  sound,  and  a  more  statesmanlike  method 
of  proceeding  than  to  attempt  to  confer  on  Ireland  a  cut  and 
dried  Constitution,  separating  and  cutting  off  Ireland  com- 
pletely from  all  pohtical  connection  with  the  United  Kingdom 
of  England  and  Scotland.  Before  I  leave  that  point,  there 
is  only  one  observation  I  must  make.  My  right  honourable 
friend  referred  to  my  speech  at  Belfast  as  if  I  had  indicated 
my  willingness  ultimately  to  grant  to  Ireland  as  large  a  measure 
of  decentralisation  as  is  embodied  in  this  Bill.  I  spoke  simply 
and  exclusively  of  those  subjects  which  we  understand  in 
England  and  Scotland  as  included  in  the  term  local  self- 
government  ;  but  there  is  nothing  I  said  in  that  speech,  or  in 
any  other  speech,  which  ever  indicated  the  slightest  intention 
or  wilUngness  on  my  part  to  place  the  responsibility  for  the 
administration  of  the  law  relating  to  life  and  liberty  and 
property  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  representatives  of  the 
Irish  people,  and  to  separate  from  that  responsibility  altogether 
the  Parliament  and  Government  of  this  country.  Now,  Sir, 
after  the  speech  of  my  right  honourable  friend,  and  after  the 
declaration  which  was  published  by  him  a  short  time  ago,  I 
think  we  are  entitled  to  ask  whether,  in  voting  on  the  second 
reading  of  this  Bill,  we  are  now  asked  to  vote  for  a  measure 


312  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

which  it  is  intended  to  pass  into  law,  or  for  an  abstract  resolu- 
tion. We  were  told  the  other  day,  and  we  have  been  told  in 
similar  terms  to-night,  that  we  are  not  now  to  busy  ourselves 
with  details  and  particulars  ;  that  their  time  will  come  ;  and 
that  all  we  have  to  do  now  is  to  say  that  we  will  establish  in 
Ireland  a  Legislative  Body  for  the  control  of  Irish  affairs. 
Well,  surely,  if  we  are  not  to  discuss  details  and  particulars, 
if  we  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  discuss  a  plan  proposed  by  the 
Government,  for  which  the  Government  intend  to  take  the 
responsibility,  and  to  which  they  mean  to  adhere,  how  is  it 
possible  that  we  can  give  an  answer  to  the  question  whether 
we  are  prepared  to  estabhsh  in  Ireland  a  Legislative  Body  for 
the  management  of  Irish  affairs  ?  That  was  formerly  the  view 
of  my  right  honourable  friend  himself.  In  1874 — well,  my 
right  honourable  friend  has  told  us  to-night  that  the  first 
Home  Rule  movement  took  place  in  1871,  and  he  has  quoted 
a  speech  made  in  that  year.  My  right  honourable  friend  has, 
therefore,  had  time  to  give  some  attention  to  this  subject. 
In  1874,  Mr.  Butt  moved  an  amendment  to  the  Address  raising 
the  question  of  Home  Rule,  and  my  right  honourable  friend 
himself  replied.     He  said,  if  a  Home  Rule  plan  was  proposed — 

We  shall  first  inquire  whether  it  be  intelligible  before  we  inquire 
whether  it  be  expedient. 

He  further  said — 

It  is  a  dangerous  and  tricky  system  for  Parliament  to  adopt — to 
encounter  national  dissatisfaction,  if  it  really  exists,  with  an  assurance 
which  may  mean  anything  or  nothing — which  may,  perhaps,  conciliate 
the  feeling  of  the  people  of  Ireland  for  the  moment  and  attract  a  passing 
breath  of  popularity,  but  which,  when  the  day  of  trial  comes,  may  be 
found  entirely  to  fail.  It  is  a  method  of  proceeding  which,  whatever 
party  may  be  in  power,  or  whatever  measures  may  be  adopted,  I  trust 
this  House  will  never  condescend  to  adopt. 

Well,  Sir,  when  my  right  honourable  friend  used  those  words, 
was  it  his  intention  that  we  were  absolutely  to  exclude  from 
our  minds,  in  discussing  Mr.  Butt's  amendment,  all  details 
and  particulars  ?  How  is  it  possible  that  we  can  discuss  at 
length  a  plan,  and  say  whether  it  is  a  good  or  a  bad  plan,  unless 
we  are  allowed  to  discuss  details  and  particulars,  and  unless 
we  have  some  knowledge  as  to  which  of  those  details  and 
particulars  represent  the  fixed  and  settled  opinion  and  judg- 
ment of  the  Government — to  which  they  intend  to  adhere, 
and  which  are  not  to  be  left  to  the  hazard  of  discussion  in 


DEVONSHIRE  313 

Committee  ?  My  right  honourable  friend  said  the  Committee 
stage  of  this  BiU  is  not  to  be  anticipated.  I  maintain  that  the 
essence  of  this  question — whether  it  is  wise  or  politic  to  grant 
a  Legislative  Body  to  Ireland — lies  in  these  details  ;  and  that 
unless  we  can  see  beforehand  a  good,  intelligible,  and  satis- 
factory plan,  no  man  among  us  will  be  entitled  to  say  "  aye  " 
to  the  motion  for  the  second  reading  of  this  Bill.  Well,  Sir, 
my  right  honourable  friend  used  much  language  of  the  same 
kind  on  the  introduction  of  this  BiU.  He  said  he  wanted  no 
longer  that  we  "  should  fence  and  skirmish  with  this  question," 
but  that  we  should  "  come  to  close  quarters."  But  how  are 
we  to  come  to  close  quarters  with  this  question  unless  we  are 
allowed  to  discuss  the  details  and  particulars,  and  to  know  what 
are  the  main  points  of  the  plan  of  the  Government  to  which 
they  intend  to  adhere,  and  which  are  not  subject  to  alteration 
in  Committee  ?  My  right  honourable  friend  said  a  good  deal 
to-night  upon  the  question  of  the  retention  of  the  Irish  repre- 
sentation in  this  House.  He  has  hinted — I  cannot  say  I 
entirely  understand  his  proposal — ^he  has  hinted  at,  I  beheve, 
the  outlines  of  certain  proposals  which  the  Government  them- 
selves intend  to  make.  But,  as  I  understood,  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  the  retention  of  Irish  representation  in  this  House,  is 
one  which  is  open  to  consideration  in  Committee.  Well,  now, 
let  me  point  out  one  or  two  of  the  consequences  which  rest 
upon  the  decision  to  which  the  House  may  come  upon  this 
point  of  detail,  as  it  was  described  the  other  day  by  my  right 
honourable  friend.  If  the  Irish  members  are  to  be  absolutely 
excluded  from  this  House,  it  foUows  as  a  necessary  consequence 
that  a  large  measure  of  legislative  independence  must  be 
conceded  to  the  Irish  Legislative  Body  and  to  the  Irish  Govern- 
ment. There  must  be  in  Ireland  some  kind  of  representative 
government,  and  there  must  be  in  Ireland  some  power  of 
legislation,  and  if  the  Irish  members  are  to  be  excluded  from  this 
House,  it  is  clear  that  we  cannot  legislate  for  them  here. 
Therefore,  the  necessary  alternative  is  that  we  should  allow 
them  to  legislate  for  themselves.  But  if  this  detail  be  settled 
the  other  way,  if  it  be  ultimately  settled  that  the  Irish  repre- 
sentation is  to  be  retained  in  this  House,  then  there  no  longer 
arises  this  imminent  necessity  that  the  Irish  Parliament  should 
have  complete  power  of  legislation  over  every  Irish  matter. 
On  the  contrary,  there  arises  a  very  strong  presumption  the 


314  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

other  way  ;  because  if  the  Irish  Members  are  present  in  this 
House — whether  they  come  to  discuss  finance  or  anything  else 
— I  maintain  that  it  will  be  impossible  that  Irish  questions 
should  be  excluded  from  discussion  in  this  House  ;  and  thus 
two  influences,  acting  possibly  in  opposite  and  contrary  ways, 
would  be  brought  to  bear  on  the  Irish  Government,  and  pres- 
sure might  be  applied  to  the  Lord-Lieutenant,  and  through  him, 
to  the  Irish  Government,  by  a  majority  in  this  House,  which 
was  altogether  opposed  in  political  opinions  to  the  majority 
of  the  Irish  Legislature,  to  which  the  Irish  Government  would 
be  responsible.  Therefore,  I  say,  it  is  of  first  and  cardinal 
importance  that  we  should  know,  before  we  decide  this  ques- 
tion, whether  Ireland  is  to  have  a  Legislature  competent  to 
deal  with  all  Irish  matters  ;  whether  it  is  or  is  not  proposed 
that  Ireland  is  to  retain  a  permanent,  a  temporary,  a  complete, 
or  a  limited  representation  within  the  walls  of  this  House. 
We  know  very  well,  Sir,  what  are  the  causes  which  have  induced 
the  Government  to  give  their  benevolent  consideration  to  the 
proposal  that  the  Irish  representation  in  this  House  should 
be  maintained.  We  know  that  my  right  honourable  friend 
the  Member  for  West  Birmingham  (Mr.  Chamberlain)  formu- 
lated his  demands  on  this  subject  in  a  somewhat  imperative 
fashion.  We  know  that  the  fate  of  this  Bill  may  not  impro- 
bably depend  upon  the  decision  to  which  my  right  honourable 
friend  may  come.  Well,  Sir,  I  do  not  know,  I  am  not  able  to 
say,  what  effect  upon  my  right  honourable  friend's  opinion 
the  proposals  announced  to-night  by  Her  Majesty's  Government 
may  have.  I  should  doubt  whether  they  would  be  such  as 
to  satisfy  his  requirements,  or  to  conciliate  his  opposition. 
What  has  been  the  main  ground,  as  I  understand  it,  of  my 
right  honourable  friend's  demand  that  the  Irish  representation 
in  this  House  should  be  retained  ?  Why,  because  their 
exclusion  was  the  clear,  the  palpable,  the  unanswerable  proof, 
the  outward  and  visible  sign  of  the  complete  separation  which 
is  intended  by  this  measure  between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 
I  do  not  understand  my  right  honourable  friend  to  have  made 
this  demand  as  a  complete  and  final  satisfaction  to  all  the 
alterations  which  he  would  require  in  this  measure.  He  has 
made  it  as  the  indispensable  preliminary  for  the  further  altera- 
tions which  he  thinks  scarcely  less  necessary.  He  has  told  us 
what  are  the  modifications  which  he  thinks  are  required.     He 


DEVONSHIRE  315 

has  told  us  that  he  would  like  to  see  a  separate  legislative 
body,  or  Provincial  Council,  or  whatever  it  may  be  called, 
granted  to  Ulster.  He  has  told  us  that  he  would  wish 
to  see  the  complete  control  over  taxation  retained  in 
the  hands  of  the  Imperial  Parliament ;  and  he  has  told  us 
that  he  would  wish  to  see  all  the  arrangements  about  the  first 
and  second  orders  and  the  property  qualification  removed  from 
the  Irish  legislative  body.  These  are  all  necessary  alterations 
which  he  considers  would  logically  follow  upon  the  retention 
of  the  Irish  representation  in  Parliament.  I  am  not  sure 
whether  in  any  case  it  would  have  been  admitted  that  those 
alterations  would  logically  have  followed  from  these  conces- 
sions ;  but  I  feel  tolerably  certain  that  no  such  alteration  will 
follow  from  the  extremely  limited  concession  which  my  right 
honourable  friend  has  made  to-night  to  the  demands  which 
have  been  put  forward  by  my  right  honourable  friend  the 
member  for  West  Birmingham.  The  fact,  as  I  understand  it, 
is  this — that  although  my  right  honourable  friend  the  member 
for  West  Birmingham  has  spoken  of  a  federal  arrangement, 
he  has  not  departed  in  principle,  or  departed  very  far,  from  his 
original  proposal  of  granting  to  Ireland  a  great  municipality 
for  the  management  of  certain  strictly  specified  objects,  strictly 
limited  and  controlled  by  Parliament,  and  acting  in  subordina- 
tion to,  and  under  the  control  of.  Parliament,  and  of  a  Govern- 
ment responsible  to  Parliament.  That,  Sir,  I  understand  to 
be  the  form  which  my  right  honourable  friend  would  wish 
to  give  to  this  Bill.  I  cannot  say  that  I  have  heard  one  word 
to-night  from  my  right  honourable  friend  at  the  head  of  the 
Government  which  shows  that  he  is  in  the  slightest  degree 
inclined  to  make  any  concessions  to  my  right  honourable  friend, 
or  to  those  who  agree  with  him,  in  this  direction  ;  and 
although  he  intends,  for  certain  specified  exceptional  and  rare 
purposes,  that  Irish  representatives  may  return  to  this  House, 
yet  this  complete  and  virtual  separation  of  the  two  Legisla- 
tures and  of  the  two  Governments  is  to  be  as  complete,  if  not 
even  more  complete,  than  when  the  Bill  was  originally  intro- 
duced. It  seems  to  me,  if  I  rightly  understand  something  that 
fell  from  my  right  honourable  friend  to-night,  that  one  of  the 
new  proposals  goes  far  towards  making  the  Irish  legislative 
assembly  a  co-ordinate  assembly  with  the  British  Legislature. 
I  understand  that  there  is  to  be  something  in  the  nature  of  a 


316  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

Commission  which  is  to  report  on  foreign  and  other  matters  ; 
that  the  two  Houses  are,  through  this  Commission,  to  have  the 
power  of  conferring  with  each  other,  and  upon  an  address 
from  the  Irish  House  the  Irish  members  may  be  invited  over 
here  to  discuss  Imperial  matters. 

[Mr.  Gladstone,  interrupting,  was  understood  to  say 
that  the  noble  Marquess  was  referring  to  an  entirely  distinct 
matter.] 

Well,  Sir,  I  will  not  discuss  this  matter,  because  I  confess 
that  I  do  not  understand  fully  what  the  proposal  was.  I 
think  it  is  unfortunate  that  a  proposal  which  seems  to  me 
of  very  considerable  importance,  and  which  may  have  a  very 
considerable  effect  on  the  opinions  of  many  honourable  members 
in  getting  their  vote  on  the  second  reading  of  this  BiU,  should 
be  only  before  us  in  the  form  of  a  statement  by  my  right 
honourable  friend,  and  that  we  should  not  have,  and  I  suppose 
we  cannot  have,  before  the  second  reading  of  the  Bill,  a  clear 
and  definite  statement  in  the  form  of  clauses  in  the  Bill  to  tell 
us  what  are  these  actual  proposals  now  going  to  be  made.  I 
must  assume,  after  what  we  have  heard  to-night,  that  although 
this  Bill  is  subject  to  large  modifications  in  committee,  it  is 
the  intention  of  the  Government  that  it  should  remain  sub- 
stantially in  the  form  in  which  it  was  introduced.  Well,  then, 
perhaps  I  may  say  briefly  what  are  some  of  the  principal 
objections  which  I  entertain  to  this  Bill,  and  why  I  cannot 
give  my  support  to  it.  In  the  first  place,  I  should  like  to  say, 
before  I  pass  away  altogether  from  that  point,  that  it  seems 
to  me  altogether  erroneous  to  say,  as  my  right  honourable 
friend  said  in  his  manifesto  the  other  day,  and  I  think  he 
repeated  it  to-night,  that  the  sole  principle  which  is  contained 
in  this  BiU  is  the  concession  of  autonomy  to  Ireland.  Sir,  I 
find  in  this  measure  other  principles,  or,  at  all  events,  pro- 
visions involving  principles,  which  are  of  far  greater  importance 
than  are  contained  in  a  dozen  ordinary  Bills.  In  the  first 
place,  there  is  an  alteration  in  the  constitution  of  Parliament. 
For  all  practical  purposes,  notwithstanding  what  we  have 
been  told  to-day,  the  Imperial  Parliament  is  henceforward 
to  be  representative  of  two  kingdoms  instead  of  three.  That 
is  a  principle  of  some  importance.  This  Bill,  for  the  first  time, 
limits  the  authority  of  Parliament.  Hitherto  Parliament  has 
been   omnipotent — perhaps  the   expression  is  somewhat  too 


DEVONSHIRE  317 

wide — but  we  have  been  accustomed  to  consider  Parliament 
omnipotent ;  and  I  believe,  subject  to  the  laws  of  nature  and 
of  its  own  will,  there  has,  up  to  the  present  time,  been  no 
limitation  upon  the  authority  of  Parliament.  But  this  Bill, 
for  the  first  time,  will  hmit  the  authority  of  Parliament.  The 
thirty-seventh  clause  in  the  Bill,  under  the  guise  of  saving  the 
legislative  power  and  authority  of  Parliament,  virtually  parts 
with  a  part  of  the  power  now  possessed  by  Parliament.  That 
clause  says  that  the  powers  of  Parliament  shall  be  preserved, 
notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  this  Act,  in  relation 
to  all  matters  with  which  it  is  not  competent  for  the  Irish 
Parliament  to  deal.  Therefore,  inferentially,  that  clause  lays 
down  that  with  matters  with  which  it  is  competent  for  the 
Irish  Legislature  to  deal,  it  shall  no  longer  be  competent  for  the 
Imperial  Parliament  to  deal.  That  is  a  new  principle  of  some 
importance,  and  not  a  detail.  Then,  again,  for  the  first  time, 
a  judicial  authority  is  set  up  which  will  have  power  to  take 
cognisance  of,  and  pronounce  an  opinion  on,  the  Umits  of 
Parliamentary  authority.  Constitutional  questions  are  to  be 
referred  to  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council.  The 
Lord-Lieutenant  or  the  Secretary  of  State  may  refer  such 
questions  to  the  Privy  Council.  The  Privy  Council  is  to  decide 
whether  such  a  question  is  or  is  not  within  the  competence 
of  the  Irish  legislative  body  ;  and  if  it  decides  that  it  is  so 
competent  it  will,  by  the  same  decision,  decide  that  it  is  not 
constitutionally  within  the  competence  of  the  Imperial  Parlia- 
ment. Sir,  I  say  that  these  are  enormous  changes  of  principle, 
and  changes  of  principle  which  may  have  a  more  far-reaching 
effect  than  even  is  contemplated  by  them  as  they  are  pre- 
sented to  us  in  this  Bill.  I  will  not  attempt,  I  cannot  attempt, 
to  forecast  what  may  be  the  future  influence  upon  our  con- 
stitutional notions  and  constitutional  practice  of  the  importa- 
tion of  innovations  such  as  these  ;  but  I  say,  at  all  events, 
they  are  not  details  ;  they  are  principles  which  the  House 
ought  to  bear  in  mind,  and  ought  to  have  clearly  before  it, 
previous  to  giving  its  assent  to  an  abstract  resolution,  affirming 
in  the  opinion  of  my  right  honourable  friend,  only  the  principle 
that  Ireland  ought  to  have  some  control  over  its  own  affairs. 
I  should  like  to  state  one  or  two  objections  to  the  Bill.  I 
maintain  that  the  cardinal  principle  laid  down  by  my  right 
honourable    friend — the    maintenance    of    the    unity   of   the 


318  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Empire — is  not  secured  by  this  Bill.  I  think,  Sir,  it  would 
be  an  error  to  suppose  that  the  unity  of  the  Empire  is  main- 
tained if  it  presents  a  united  front  in  foreign  policy,  if  it  is 
represented  by  a  united  Navy  and  a  united  Army.  As  far  as 
external  matters  go,  and  as  far  as  our  relations  with  other 
states  and  nations  are  concerned,  we  may  be  able  to  preserve 
the  semblance  of  unity  after  this  Bill  is  passed  ;  but  as  far 
as  our  internal  position  goes,  I  say  that  with  the  passing  of 
this  Bill,  the  unity  of  the  Empire  will  have  disappeared.  We 
may  have  not  only  different  laws  in  Ireland  from  those  which 
prevail  in  England  and  Scotland  ;  but  laws  founded  on  totally 
different  principles,  and  administered  in  a  totally  different 
spirit.  And  I  say  that  this  is  no  extravagant  supposition.  If 
the  principles  recently  preached  by  the  Irish  Land  League  and 
the  Irish  National  League  be  translated  into  legislation  by  the 
Irish  Parliament,  and  if  laws  founded  on  those  principles  be 
administered  by  those  who  have  had  control  over  the  National 
League,  then  we  shall  find  in  Ireland  a  state  of  law  relating 
to  property,  liberty,  and  security  of  life,  which  will  be  of  an 
altogether  different  character  to  that  prevailing  in  this  country. 
Can  it  be  said  that  the  unity  of  the  Empire  is  maintained  when 
an  Englishman,  going  from  England  to  Ireland,  or  an  Irishman 
remaining  in  Ireland,  finds  himself  subject  to  a  code  of  laws 
administered  in  a  totally  different  spirit  from  that  which 
prevails  in  the  rest  of  the  Empire  ?  And,  in  my  opinion,  it 
would  be  no  exaggeration  to  suppose  that  it  would  be  per- 
fectly possible,  if  this  Bill  is  passed,  for  an  EngUshman  to 
emigrate  to  the  United  States  of  America  and  find  himself 
in  a  condition  of  things  less  altered  in  all  that  related  to  his 
Government,  and  to  the  laws  under  which  he  lived,  than  if  he 
transferred  his  domicile  from  England  and  Scotland  to  the 
newly-created  Kingdom  of  Ireland.  I  maintain  that  no 
adequate  safeguards  have  been  provided  for  the  minority. 
That  is  a  point  on  which  my  right  honourable  friend  dwelt  in 
his  introductory  speech.  He  told  us  who  those  were  for  whom 
protection  was  required.  These  were  the  Ulster  Protestants, 
the  landlords,  and  the  Civil  servants.  I  think  the  Ulster 
Protestants  have  had  but  cold  comfort  offered  to  them.  They 
have  been  told  that  various  suggestions  have  been  made  which 
shall  receive  in  committee  full  consideration  ;  but  none  of 
which  have  assumed  so  practical  a  shape  as  to  be  worthy  of 


DEVONSHIRE  319 

attention,  or  worthy  of  adoption,  by  the  Government ;  and 
the  Ulster  Protestants  are  given  to  understand  that  if  some- 
body cannot  put  these  suggestions  into  a  more  practical  shape 
than  the  Government  have  been  able  to  do,  they  must  be  left 
to  take  their  chance.  Then  the  landlords  are  to  be  provided 
for,  if  the  Land  Purchase  Bill  passes,  by  being  bought  out. 
We  have  had  significant  hints  regarding  the  Irish  landlords. 
We  have  been  told  that  "  the  sands  are  running  out,"  and  that 
as  yet  the  Irish  landlords  have  made  no  sign  ;  and  it  would 
seem  that  unless  the  Irish  landlords  can  discover  some  con- 
stitutional means  by  which  they  are  to  express  their  gratitude 
for  being,  in  the  first  place,  compelled  to  become  exiles  from 
their  native  country,  and,  in  the  second  place,  compelled  to 
receive  only  about  half  the  income  to  which  they  are  now 
legally  entitled — unless  they  can  find  some  constitutional 
means  of  expressing  gratitude  for  these  boons,  it  appears  that 
they  also  will  have  to  go  without  any  compensation  at  all. 
We  will  assume  that  the  landlords  are  bought  out,  and  the 
Civil  servants  pensioned  off.  There  will  still  be  a  large  minority 
behind  in  Ireland,  exclusive  altogether  of  the  minority  we  have 
in  Ulster,  who  will  be  rendered  the  more  helpless  by  the  depar- 
ture of  the  landlords  and  of  the  Civil  servants.  There  will  be 
all  those  who  have  done  service  to  these  obnoxious  classes, 
who  have  in  times  past  done  what  they  thought  good  service, 
as  the  right  honourable  gentleman  says,  to  the  maintenance 
of  law  and  order  ;  men  who  have  acted  as  jurymen,  and  have 
done  their  duty  ;  men  who  have  acted  as  independent  wit- 
nesses ;  men  who,  in  one  capacity  or  another,  have  made 
themselves  obnoxious  to  what  will  become  the  dominant 
power  in  Ireland  ;  and  for  this  minority,  rendered  more  help- 
less by  the  departure  of  those  to  whom  they  would  have  a  right 
to  look  for  assistance,  no  protection  whatever  is  provided.  I 
recognise,  I  admit,  that  the  provisions  respecting  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Irish  legislative  body  were  probably  devised 
with  the  honest  intention  of  giving  what  protection  could  be 
given  to  this  minority.  But  how  have  these  provisions  been 
received  ?  How  many  of  the  members  who  have  intimated 
their  intention  to  vote  for  the  second  reading  of  this  Bill  have 
expressed  their  intention  to  abide  by  such  provisions  ?  And 
if  these  provisions  were  passed  into  law,  I  must  confess  that 
they  appear  to  me,  however  honestly  intended,  to  be  far  more 


320  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

likely  to  produce  a  deadlock  and  confusion  in  the  Irish  Parlia- 
ment and  the  Irish  administration  than  to  answer  the  pur- 
poses for  which  they  were  intended — namely,  of  giving  adequate 
security  to  the  minority.  Can  we  doubt  that  if  there  was  this 
deadlock  and  confusion  lasting  for  a  few  years  an  agitation 
would  arise — and  probably  a  successful  agitation — for  the 
abolition  and  removal  of  these  restrictions,  and  for  the  abolition 
of  the  last  provision  in  this  Bill,  which  is  intended  for  the 
protection  of  any  Irish  minority  ?  My  right  honourable 
friend  suggested  in  his  manifesto  the  other  day  the  possible 
extension  of  this  measure  to  Scotland,  and  he  spoke  of  some 
who  viewed  this  proposal  with  horror.  I  do  not  know  whether 
he  referred  to  anything  I  said  on  this  subject.  I  certainly  have 
never  said  one  word  to  show  that  I  am  in  the  slightest  degree 
disinclined  to  give  a  large  measure,  and  a  liberal  measure,  of 
local  self-government  to  the  people  of  Scotland,  if  they  wish  it. 
What  I  have  endeavoured  to  point  out  is  this — ^that  if  this 
measure  is  founded  on  sound  principles,  it  ought  to  be  one 
capable  of  being  applied  to  Scotland.  And  I  have  pointed 
out  that  if  it  was  proposed  to  extend  this  measure  to  Scotland, 
the  people  of  Scotland  would  scout  and  reject  it ;  and  I  have 
attempted  to  show  that  it  is  extremely  likely  that  the  Irish 
people  would  in  a  short  time  be  as  dissatisfied  with  the  measure, 
as  the  Scotch  people  would  be  at  the  very  first,  and  that  this 
measure  is  not  therefore  likely  to  be  any  final  solution.  But 
my  right  honourable  friend  says  in  his  manifesto,  that  if  the 
Scottish  question  were  raised,  it  would  be  debated  upon  its 
own  merits,  and  without  reference  to  any  of  the  painful  con- 
siderations which  have  been  dragged  into  this  controversy  as 
regards  Ireland.     My  right  honourable  friend  says — 

If  the  case  of  Scotland  is  discussed,  it  will  be  done  without  the 
painful  and  disparaging  circumstances  of  controversy  with  which  we 
are  now  threatened  in  the  case  of  Ireland,  whose  woeful  history  for 
centuries  emboldens  some  of  us  to  treat  her  as  if  she  had  but  a  limited 
share  in  the  great  inheritance  of  human  right,  and  none  at  all  in  the 
ordinary  privilege  of  immunity  from  gross  and  wholesale  insult — 
emboldens,  I  say,  some  of  us,  but  only  some  of  us,  and  not,  I  rejoice  to 
think,  the  nations  of  Scotland  or  of  England. 

I  do  not  know  who  "  some  of  us  "  are  to  whom  my  right 
honourable  friend  refers.  I  suppose  he  refers  to  what  he  termed 
the  representatives  of  class.  I  may  be  included — I  probably 
am   included — among   those   representatives   of   class   whose 


DEVONSHIRE  321 

evidence  is  discredited  evidence,  whose  opinion  upon  this 
subject  is  not  worth  having  ;  but  I  shall  not  be  debarred, 
nevertheless,  from  expressing  my  opinion  of  the  character,  the 
political  antecedents,  and  the  political  record  of  the  men  who 
we  are  now  told  are  the  representatives  of  the  vast  majority 
of  the  people  of  Ireland,  and  to  whose  hands  will  be  entrusted, 
if  this  Bill  should  pass,  the  future  destinies  of  Ireland.  I  shall 
call  as  a  witness  no  discredited  representative  of  class  ;  but  I 
will  call  as  a  witness  my  right  honourable  friend  himself,  and 
I  shall  quote  his  words,  used  five  years  ago,  in  1881,  when  my 
right  honourable  friend  was  then,  as  now,  the  leader  of  the 
"  upright  sense  of  the  nation."  What  was  the  description 
which  he  gave  then  of  the  political  party  which  we  are  now 
told  by  him  is  representative  of  the  great  majority  of  the  people 
of  Ireland  ?  The  passage  to  which  I  refer  has  been  often 
quoted  ;  but  as  it  is  important  in  this  connection,  I  will  read 
it  to  the  House.  My  right  honourable  friend,  speaking  at 
Leeds  in  1881,  said — 

For  nearly  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  Christendom  a  body — a 
small  body — of  men  has  arisen  who  are  not  ashamed  to  preach  in 
Ireland  the  doctrines  of  public  plunder.  I  make  that  charge  advisedly 
in  the  situation  which  I  hold,  and  I  shall  ask  you  to  judge  with  me 
whether  it  is  not  wrung  from  me  by  demonstrative  evidence  and  by 
the  hard  necessity  of  the  case. 

My  right  honourable  friend  then  contrasted  the  policy  and 
the  principles  of  the  honourable  member  for  Cork  (Mr.  Pamell) 
with  those  of  Mr.  O'Connell,  and  drew  a  distinction  between 
them  on  five  points.     He  said — 

Mr.  O'Connell  professed  his  unconditional  and  unswerving  loyalty 
to  the  Crown  of  England.  Mr.  Pamell  says  that  if  the  Crown  of  Eng- 
land is  to  be  the  link  between  the  two  countries,  it  must  be  the  only 
link  ;  but  whether  it  is  to  be  the  link  at  all — I  am  not  now  quoting  his 
words — is  a  matter  on  which,  I  believe,  he  has  given  no  opinion  whatever. 
O'Connell  desired  friendly  relations  with  the  people  of  this  country — 
cordial  and  hearty  friendship.  What  does  Mr.  Pamell  desire  ?  He 
says  the  Irish  people  must  make  manufactures  of  their  own  in  order 
that  they  may  buy  nothing  in  England Friendship  with  Eng- 
land was  the  motto  of  O'Connell,  who  on  every  occasion  declared  his 
respect  for  property,  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  he  consistently  maintained 

it ;    but  what  says  Mr.  Parnell  upon  that  subject  ? Now 

that  the  Land  Act  has  passed,  and  now  that  he  is  afraid  lest  the  people 
of  England,  by  their  long-continued  efforts,  should  win  the  hearts  of  the 
whole  Irish  nation,  Mr.  Parnell  has  a  new  and  an  enlarged  gospel  of 

21 — (2171) 


322  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

plunder  to  proclaim.  He  says  now  that  whereas  the  rental  of  Ireland 
is  /1 7,000,000  the  landlord  is  entitled  to  nothing  but  the  original  value 
of  the  land  before  the  spade  was  put  into  it ;  and  that  the  rental  he  may 
justly  claim  is  not  /1 7,000,000,  but  possibly  about  ;^3,000,000.  And 
I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  as  honest  men,  not  as  poUticians,  not  as  Liberals, 
not  in  any  other  capacity — I  ask  you  whether  it  is  possible  to  describe 
proceedings  of  that  kind  in  any  other  words  more  just  or  accurate  than 
as  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel  of  sheer  plunder.  The  next  of  the 
five  points  was  respect  for  law  and  human  life.  On  this  I  think 
O'Connell  was  consistent ;  and  I  believe  he  was  unimpeachable.  Mr. 
Parnell  is  somewhat  copious  in  his  references  to  America.  He  seems 
to  set  up  America  as  the  true  and  only  friend  of  Ireland  ;  but  in  all 
his  references  to  America  he  has  never  found  time  to  utter  one  word  of 
disapproval  or  misgiving  about  what  is  known  as  the  assassination 
literature  of  that  country.  Not  American  literature  ;  no,  there  is 
not  an  American  who  does  not  scorn  it,  and  spurn  it,  and  loathe  it,  as 
you  do.  But  there  are,  it  is  sad  to  say,  a  knot  of  Irishmen  who  are  not 
ashamed  to  point  out  in  the  Press  which  they  maintain  how  the  ships 
in  Her  Majesty's  Navy  ought  to  be  blown  into  the  air  to  destroy  the 
power  of  England  by  secret  treachery,  and  how  gentlemen  that  they 
are  pleased  to  select  ought  to  be  made  the  object  of  the  knife  of  the 
assassin  and  deprived  of  life  because  they  do  not  conform  to  the  new 
Irish  gospel. 

Well,  Sir,  that  was  the  description  given  five  years  ago — 
it  may  be  said  a  long  time  ago — of  that  party,  the  small  party 
of  the  honourable  member  for  Cork  at  that  time.  I  want  to 
know  which  of  the  doctrines  that  were  held  by  the  honourable 
Member  for  Cork  at  that  time,  and  which  were  thus  denounced 
by  my  right  honourable  friend  have  been  ever  renounced  or 
repudiated  by  the  honourable  gentleman  or  by  his  party  in 
this  House.  I  do  not  know  that  they  have  been  verbally 
repudiated.  I  want  to  know  whether  there  is  any  visible 
sign  that  they  have  been  practically  repudiated.  Is  there 
any  difference — any  essential  or  practical  difference — in  the 
methods  and  procedure  of  the  National  League  from  the 
methods  and  procedure  of  the  Land  League,  which  was  thus 
spoken  of  by  my  right  honourable  friend  then  ?  As  far  as  I 
can  see,  the  description  given  of  the  policy  of  that  party  then 
is  not  materially  altered  in  any  respect  now,  except  that  the 
description  then  given  was  the  description  of  that  small  party 
which  it  might  then  have  been  reasonably  contended  did  not 
represent  any  large  proportion  of  the  Irish  people  ;  but  it  is 
now  a  large  party,  which  it  is  asserted  does  represent  the  vast 
majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  Ireland.  Well,  what  was  the 
course,  what  was  the  advice,  what  was  the  policy  of  my  right 


DEVONSHIRE  323 

honourable  friend  at  that  time  in  reference  to  that  state  of 
circumstances  ?     My  right  honourable  friend  said — 

But,  if,  when  we  have  that  short  further  experience  to  which  I 
have  referred,  it  shall  then  appear  that  there  is  still  to  be  fought  a  final 
conflict  in  Ireland  between  law  on  the  one  side  and  sheer  lawlessness  on 
the  other  ;  if  the  law  purged  from  defect  and  from  any  taint  of  injustice 
is  still  to  be  repelled  and  refused,  and  the  first  conditions  of  political 
society  are  to  be  set  at  nought,  then  I  say,  gentlemen,  without  any 
hesitation,  the  resources  of  civilisation  against  its  enemies  are  not  yet 
exhausted. 

That  was  the  policy  which  my  right  honourable  friend 
recommended  then,  and  which  I  venture  to  recommend  now. 
If  this  war — this  final  conflict  between  law  on  the  one  side 
and  sheer  lawlessness  on  the  other — is  to  continue,  that  is  the 
policy  which  I  venture  to  recommend  still,  but  for  recommending 
which  I  and  my  friends  are  caUed  the  representatives  of  class. 
I  forget  what  the  other  epithet  which  my  right  honourable 
friend  applied  was.  (An  honourable  Member  :  Dependents.) 
But  these,  we  are  told,  are  now  the  principles  held  by  the 
representatives  of  class.  Well,  Sir,  my  right  honourable 
friend  concluded  that  speech  by  saying — 

I,  for  one,  in  that  state  of  facts  relying  upon  my  fellow-countrymen 
in  these  three  nations  associated  together,  have  not  a  doubt  of  the 
result. 

I  wish  that  I  could  say  the  same  now.  I  wish  there  was  not 
a  doubt  as  to  the  result  of  the  policy  which  my  right  honourable 
friend  then  recommended.  But,  Sir,  I  say  that  the  circum- 
stances which  were  then  described  by  my  right  honourable 
friend  are  not  materially  or  substantially  altered  ;  and,  there- 
fore, in  my  opinion,  the  policy  my  right  honourable  friend 
then  recommended,  founded  on  that  state  of  facts,  ought  not 
to  be  substantially  altered  either.  I  see  no  reason,  simply 
because  the  party  professing  those  principles  has  acquired 
greater  strength  and  possibly  a  greater  claim  to  represent  a 
large  number  of  the  people  of  Ireland — I  see  no  reason  why  we 
are  to  retire  from  that  which  has  been  called  by  my  right 
honourable  friend  a  conflict  between  law  on  the  one  side  and 
sheer  lawlessness  on  the  other,  and  why  we  are  to  sacrifice, 
without  any  further  struggle,  the  principles  upon  which,  in 
the  opinion  of  my  right  honourable  friend  at  that  time,  the 
structure  and  basis  of  society  reposed.     Sir,  it  is  for  these 


324  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

reasons,  only  a  few  of  which  I  have  thus  imperfectly  been 
permitted  to  give  to  the  House,  that  I,  believing  that  this 
measure  is  fraught  with  mischief  and  disaster  both  to  this 
country  and  to  Ireland,  now  beg  to  move,  as  an  amendment 
to  the  motion  which  you  have  put  from  the  chair,  that  this 
Bill  be  read  a  second  time  this  day  six  months. 


JOSEPH  ARCH 

Joseph  Arch  learned  to  speak  in  the  fields,  where  he  worked, 
and  in  Methodist  Chapels,  where  he  preached.  He  acquired 
a  wonderful  power  of  carrying  his  hearers  away  by  a  mixture 
of  familiarity  and  force  which  swayed  audiences  composed 
of  men  with  like  habits  and  experience  to  his  own.  In  this 
manner  he  became  an  oracle  among  them,  and  founded 
the  Agricultural  Labourers'  Union.  This,  his  fu-st  speech  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  was  made  in  support  of  a  policy 
which  he  had  been  long  preaching  :  the  public  provision  of 
land  at  a  reasonable  price  for  allotments  to  agricultural 
labourers.  Home  Rule  for  Ireland  was  absorbing  so  much 
attention  at  the  time  that  the  subject  of  allotments  fell  into 
the  background.  It  has,  however,  been  often  more  or  less 
prominent  since,  and  this  particular  speech  is  interesting  from 
a  political  as  well  as  from  a  personal  point  of  view.  It 
was  delivered  during  the  debate  on  the  Address  at  the  opening 
of  Parhament  in  January,  1886,  the  debate  which  resulted  in 
the  defeat  of  Lord  Salisbury's  Government.  It  is  a  very  good 
example  of  a  first  attempt  in  a  new  sphere  by  a  man  who  was 
accustomed  to  audiences  of  a  very  different  kind,  and  for  this 
reason  may  well  find  a  place  in  these  pages.  The  House  of 
Commons  takes  little  account  of  credit  gained  elsewhere. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  always  willing  to  give  any  new-comer 
his  chance,  and  is  also  curious  to  observe  how  a  well-known 
personage  will  acquit  himself.  In  this  case  he  acquitted  himself 
remarkably  well,  as  the  following  speech  will  show. 

Debate  on  the  Question  of  Allotments, 
January  26,  1886 

Sir, — I  have  no  intention  of  wasting  the  time  of  the  House 
with  a  long  speech  ;  but  I  think  I  have  a  just  right  to  address 

325 


326  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  House  on  this  subject.  I  am,  as  you  are  aware,  the 
representative  of  a  class  whose  interest,  whose  happiness,  and 
whose  comfort  I  believe  gentlemen  on  both  sides  of  the  House 
are  anxious  to  improve.  With  regard  to  the  allotments 
question,  I  can  remember  when  it  was  one  of  the  most  difficult 
things  in  the  world  for  a  labourer  in  a  village  to  obtain  anything 
like  a  decent  allotment  ;  but  during  the  past  fourteen  years 
I  am  happy  to  say  that  honourable  gentlemen — both  Liberal 
and  Conservative — have,  to  some  happy  extent,  seen  their 
way  clear  to  grant  and  extend  these  allotments.  The  right 
honourable  member  for  Mid-Lincolnshire  (Mr.  Chaplin),  when 
speaking  last  night  upon  the  Amendment  of  my  honourable 
friend  the  member  for  Forfarshire  (Mr.  J.  W.  Barclay),  said 
that  the  small  freeholders  in  Mid-Lincolnshire  were  in  a  very 
destitute  condition.  I  have  watched  all  my  life  the  working 
of  a  freehold,  and  the  energy  and  contentment  of  a  free- 
holder ;  and  it  is  quite  true  that  where  a  man  has  had  a 
heavy  mortgage  on  his  little  freehold  he  has  had  a  difficulty 
to  face.  But  I  have  been  pleasantly  surprised  to  find  on  both 
sides  of  the  House  the  great  anxiety  there  is  now  to  improve 
the  agricultural  labourers'  position.  Fourteen  years  ago,  when 
I  was  asked  by  my  own  brethren  in  the  counties  if  I  could 
institute  something  to  improve  their  condition,  my  policy  was 
denounced,  my  actions  were  condemned,  and  not  a  few 
labourers  were  "  Boycotted."  I  know  that  there  are  good 
landlords  and  bad  landlords,  and  the  Amendment  of  the  honour- 
able member  for  Ipswich  (Mr.  Jesse  Collings),  I  think,  does  not 
in  the  least  interfere  with  good  landlords  who  are  willing  to 
grant  land  for  their  labourers  ;  but  are  there  not  places  in  the 
country  where  labourers  are  almost  landless  ?  Where  have  the 
majority  of  the  unemployed  men  in  our  towns  to-day  come 
from  ?  They  have  been  divorced  from  the  soil,  and  they  have 
been  driven  into  our  towns.  To  my  mind,  the  object  of  the 
Amendment  of  the  honourable  member  for  Ipswich  is  not  so 
much  to  cure  agricultural  depression  as  to  cure  the  poverty 
of  agricultural  labourers.  How  can  that  poverty  be  arrested 
if,  during  certain  portions  of  the  year,  the  working  men  in  our 
villages  are  thrown  out  of  employment  ?  My  remedy  for  years 
has  been  this — that  if  you  do  not  require  the  services  of  a  work- 
man to  till  the  land  of  the  tenant  farmer,  then,  in  the  name  of 
common  justice  and  humanity,  allow  him  some  land  to  till 


ARCH  327 

lor  himself.  I  think  the  Amendment  of  the  honourable 
member  for  Ipswich  is  quite  opportune.  When  I  read  the 
speech  of  Her  Most  Gracious  Majesty  the  Queen,  which  ex- 
pressed sympathy  with  the  distress  that  was  prevalent  not  only 
in  trade  but  in  agriculture,  I  took  it  certainly  to  mean  this — 
"  You  are  in  a  terribly  poverty-stricken  condition.  Your  lot 
in  life  is  hard.  You  are  without  employment  and  without 
money,  and  consequently  must  be  without  food.  I  know  your 
lot  is  hard,  but  I  have  no  remedy."  It  seems  to  me  something 
like  this — that  supposing  as  an  individual  I  were  suffering 
intense  bodily  pain  and  I  sent  for  a  medical  adviser,  he  looks 
at  me,  he  sees  me  writhing  in  agony,  and  he  says — "  I 
have  not  a  single  ingredient  in  my  surgery  that  I  could  apply 
to  assuage  your  pain."  Would  it  not  be  natural  enough  for 
me  to  seek  the  advice  of  some  more  skilled  physician  ?  If 
Her  Majesty's  Government  have  no  remedy  for  this  distress, 
then,  I  think,  the  country  will  very  soon  look  out  for  another 
physician  who  has  a  practical  remedy  already  at  hand.  The 
right  honourable  member  for  Mid-Lincolnshire  blamed  the 
honourable  member  for  Ipswich  because  he  had  prescribed  no 
remedy  ;  but  I  confess  that  I  have  not  yet  found  honourable 
gentlemen  on  that  side  of  the  House  prescribing  any  remedy 
themselves.  If  honourable  gentlemen  on  this  side  of  the  House 
have  not  prescribed  the  right  sort  of  medicine,  the  Government 
at  the  present  time  have  every  opportunity  of  finding  that 
medicine  and  relieving  the  distress.  The  right  honourable 
gentleman  the  member  for  Mid-Lincolnshire  said  last  night 
that  wages  had  gone  down  in  that  county  from  18s,  to  12s. 
per  week.  He  expressed  great  surprise  and  wonder  how  these 
poor  people  managed  to  live.  Now,  I  think  I  shall  be  quite 
in  place  if  I  ask  the  right  honourable  gentleman  to  try  to  live 
upon  that  wage  for  three  months  himself — then  he  will  be  able 
to  solve  the  problem.  He  further  said  that,  while  wages  were 
low,  numbers  of  men  were  out  of  employment.  Well,  if  it  is 
difficult  for  a  man  with  12s.  a  week  to  support  himself,  his  wife, 
and,  perhaps,  three  or  four  children,  what  a  sorry  plight  those 
men  must  be  in  who  are  out  of  employment  and  have  no  wages 
at  all.  Honourable  gentlemen  have  said  that  about  a  quarter 
of  an  acre  is  sufficient  for  a  working  man  in  a  village.  There 
may  be  some  working  men,  such  as  shepherds  and  carters, 
who  would,  perhaps,  be  contented  with  a  rood  of  ground  ; 


328  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

but  I  venture  to  say  that  a  very  large  number  of  the  labourers 
in  Norfolk — and  I  am  speaking  now  from  my  own  experience 
in  that  county — would  only  be  too  glad  if  they  could  rent 
an  acre  or  two  at  a  fair  market  price.  On  the  other  hand,  I 
do  not  find  any  human  or  Divine  law  which  would  confine 
me,  as  a  skilled  labourer,  to  one  rood  of  God's  earth.  If  I 
have  energy,  tact,  and  skill  by  which  I  could  cultivate  my 
acre  or  two,  and  buy  my  cow  into  the  bargain,  I  do  not  see  any 
just  reason  why  my  energies  should  be  crippled  and  my  forces 
held  back,  and  why  I  should  be  content,  as  an  agricultural 
labourer,  with  a  rood  of  ground  and  my  nose  on  the  grindstone 
all  the  days  of  my  life.  We  want  to  put  an  end  to  pauperism ; 
and  I  am  prepared  to  say  that  among  my  class  there  are  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  of  working  men  who  hate  pauperism,  and 
who  have  a  perfect  horror  of  the  workhouse.  But  if  we  are  to  be 
cut  down  to  12s.  a  week,  which  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
acknowledged  was  a  very  small  wage,  and  if  these  men  by  their 
energy  can  supplement  these  wages  by  another  10s.  or  12s. 
into  the  bargain,  I  want  to  know  why  it  should  not  be  done, 
and  the  pauperism  of  the  country  lessened.  The  right 
honourable  gentleman  spoke  of  men  in  France  having  to  work 
very  hard,  and  appearing  very  old  when  they  were  almost 
young.  He  said  they  carried  fodder  to  the  cows,  and  went 
milking,  and  the  rest  of  it ;  but  the  right  honourable  gentleman 
forgot  to  tell  us  that  they  were  their  own  cows.  I  have  seen 
the  women  in  Somersetshire,  Wiltshire,  and  Dorsetshire 
milking  other  people's  cows,  and  having  very  little  of  the  milk 
which  they  drew  from  them.  I  cannot  understand  for  the  life 
of  me  why,  if  an  English  workman  can,  by  thrift  and  industry 
and  care,  manage  to  secure  to  himself  and  his  family  a  cow, 
he  should  not  have  the  opportunity  of  doing  so.  The  Amend- 
ment of  the  honourable  member  for  Ipswich  means  that. 
We  do  not  ask  for  borrowed  funds,  or  for  the  land  to  be  given 
us,  and  we  have  no  desire  to  steal  it.  What  the  Amendment 
asks,  and  what  I  ask  honourable  gentlemen  on  both  sides  of 
the  House,  is,  whether  the  time  has  not  come  when  these 
thousands  of  industrious  and  willing  workers  should  no  longer 
be  shut  out  from  the  soil,  and  should  have  an  opportunity  of 
obtaining  a  fair  freehold,  and  producing  food  for  themselves 
and  their  families  ?  Why  are  these  men  out  of  work  ?  Is 
it  because  the  land  is  so  well  cultivated  that  no  more  of  their 


ARCH  329 

labour  is  required  ?  I  travel  this  country  from  one  end  to 
the  other,  and  I  have  an  idea  I  know  when  land  is  cultivated 
and  when  it  is  not  as  well  as  any  gentlemen  in  this  House.  I 
say,  fearless  of  contradiction,  that  there  are  tens  of  thousands 
of  acres  of  land  waiting  for  the  hand  of  the  workman  ;  and 
what  this  House  ought  to  consider  and  aim  at  is  to  use  every 
legitimate  means  to  bring  the  land  that  cries  for  labour  to  the 
labourer  as  soon  as  possible.  I  am  addressing  in  this  House 
large  landed  proprietors  ;  and  wiU  any  honourable  gentleman 
attempt  for  one  moment  to  deny  that  the  best  cultivated 
estate  is  the  best  for  the  landlord  ?  When  I  look  at  this 
question  I  go  almost  out  of  the  region  of  party  politics.  It  is 
not  a  landlord's,  a  tenant  farmer's,  or  a  labourer's  question  ; 
it  is  the  question  of  the  people,  and  they  will  very  soon  make 
it  their  question.  We  are  not  Socialists — not  in  the  offensive 
meaning  of  the  word  ;  but  to  a  certain  extent  we  are  Socialists, 
because  we  are  social  beings.  We  like  social  comforts  and 
social  society  ;  but  we  have  a  great  aversion  to  social  society 
paid  for  out  of  the  poor  rates.  An  honourable  gentleman  said 
last  night  that  it  was  beyond  the  power  of  the  honourable 
member  for  North- West  Norfolk  to  raise  wages.  I  thought 
it  was  equally  impossible  for  landlords  in  this  country  to  force 
up  rent.  We  have  always  been  told  that  the  price  of  labour 
would  be  regulated  by  what  it  is  worth  in  the  market.  That 
is  just  what  land  has  got  to  be.  My  idea  of  justice  in  land  is 
this — that  if  I  have  to  sell  as  a  tenant  farmer  my  produce 
extremely  cheap,  then  I  say  the  rent  of  my  land  should  be 
extremely  cheap.  But  the  time  has  come  for,  and  this  Parlia- 
ment has  been  elected  very  largely  to  carry  out,  some  just  and 
wise  measure,  not  only  for  the  improvement  of  the  tenant 
farmers — and  Heaven  knows  they  want  something,  some  of 
them — but  for  the  benefit  of  the  labourers  and  for  the  benefit 
of  the  country.  When  I  look  around  on  this  side  of  the  House 
I  see  several  honourable  gentlemen — a  fair  number  of  Liberal 
members — who  have  been  returned  by  the  votes  very  largely 
of  the  agricultural  labourers.  They  know  that  during  the 
contests  in  various  divisions  the  labourers  expressed  a  very 
great  desire  for  land  to  cultivate  for  themselves.  They 
naturally  concurred  with  that  idea  ;  but  I  have  never  heard 
any  Liberal  candidate  promise  the  labourers  three  acres  and 
a  cow.      For   myself,  I  never  made  such    a    vain  promise. 


330  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Something  which  dropped  from  the  right  honourable  and 
learned  Lord  Advocate  last  night  somewhat  grieved  me.  When 
he  was  speaking  of  the  labourers  of  Scotland  I  think  he  called 
them  hinds.  I  should  like  to  inform  the  right  honourable 
and  learned  gentleman  that  though  our  lot  in  life  has  been 
one  of  poverty,  though  we  were  bom  in  humble  cottages,  at 
the  same  time  we  look  upon  ourselves  as  men.  I  think  honour- 
able gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House  would  feel  very 
much  annoyed  if  we  were  to  call  them  aristocratic  goats.  The 
labourers  of  this  country  know  they  are  men.  They  have 
largely  contributed  to  the  constitution  of  this  House  ;  and  I 
hope  it  will  be  able  to  show  honestly  and  fairly  to  the  labourers 
who  have  sent  us  here  that,  at  least,  we  did  our  best  to  redress 
their  grievances,  to  dry  their  tears,  to  wipe  away  their  sorrows, 
and  to  place  them  in  the  position  of  free  men. 


MR.   CHAMBERLAIN 

Mr.  Chamberlain's  speech  on  the  first  reading  of  the  Home 
Rule  Bill  in  1886  is  a  good  specimen  of  his  clear  and  forcible 
style.  It  was  made  soon  after  his  own  resignation,  and  it 
defines  his  personal  attitude  towards  Home  Rule.  He  had 
joined  Mr.  Gladstone's  Government  in  the  hope  and  behef 
that  a  policy  of  inquiry  would  lead  to  the  adoption  of  a  scheme 
which  he  could  support.  Being  disappointed  in  that  expecta- 
tion, he  left  the  Cabinet,  and  became  one  of  Mr.  Gladstone's 
most  formidable  antagonists.  Mr.  Chamberlain  represents 
in  a  striking  degree  the  man  of  business  in  poUtics.  In  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  on  the  platform,  he  has  spoken  with  a 
mastery  of  detail  which  came  from  the  habit  of  constantly  deal- 
ing with  facts  and  figures.  But  he  has  also  a  persuasive,  incisive 
manner  of  presenting  his  arguments,  and  leading  up  to  his 
conclusions,  which  would  alone  entitle  him  to  a  place  among 
distinguished  speakers.  He  has  seldom  confined  himself,  even 
in  Opposition,  to  mere  criticism.  His  ingenuity  has  almost 
always  been  equal  to  devising  alternatives,  and  contrasting 
them  with  the  proposals  which  he  attacked.  The  speech  which 
follows  illustrates  his  essential  qualities  as  a  debater  more 
clearly  than  some  of  his  more  ambitious  efforts,  and  has,  there- 
fore, been  selected  for  insertion  here.  The  driving  force  of  his 
mind,  which  has  really  marked  him  out  from  the  run  of  merely 
skilful  debaters,  and  given  him  the  influence  he  possessed,  is 
easily  discernible  in  these  resonant,  vibrating  periods. 

Government  of  Ireland  Bill 

April  9,  1886 

Sir,  in  interposing  at  this  stage  of  the  debate  I  have  to  throw 
myself  upon  the  indulgence  of  the  House.     I  have  risen  not 

331 


332  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

so  much  for  the  purpose  of  entering  upon  any  detailed  dis- 
cussion of  the  magnificent  speech  which  was  deUvered  by  my 
right  honourable  friend  the  Prime  Minister  last  night,  as  to 
make  an  explanation  to  the  House  of  the  causes  which  led  to 
my  recent  resignation.  I  believe  that  it  is  the  invariable 
practice  of  Ministers  retiring  from  a  Cabinet  to  seek  the 
earliest  opportunity  of  explaining  their  position  to  the  House  ; 
and  if  in  my  case  this  explanation  has  necessarily  been  delayed, 
that  is  owing  to  circumstances  which  the  House  will  thoroughly 
appreciate.  I  could  not,  of  course,  without  impropriety — 
it  would  have  been  indecent  for  me  to  have  done  anything  to 
anticipate  the  explanation  of  my  right  honourable  friend  or 
to  force  his  hand  ;  and,  accordingly,  it  is  only  now  that  I 
have  the  permission  of  Her  Majesty  to  state  publicly  the 
circumstances  and  the  reasons  which  have  led  to  the  course 
which  I  have  taken.  If,  in  doing  this,  I  have  to  digress  a 
little  from  the  strict  course  of  the  debate,  I  hope  that  the  House 
will  be  willing  to  make  allowances  for  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances in  which  I  stand.  It  is  now  nearly  a  month  since  my 
right  honourable  friend  the  member  for  the  Border  Burghs 
(Mr.  Trevelyan)  and  myself  tendered  our  resignations,  and  it 
is  nearly  a  fortnight  since  they  were  finally  accepted.  In  the 
interval,  and  while  our  mouths  were  closed,  rumour  has  been 
busy  with  our  reputations  and  motives,  and  rumour  has  not 
always  been  very  truthful,  and  certainly  it  has  not  been  very 
friendly.  I  find  that  some  persons,  whose  frame  of  mind  it 
is  very  difficult  for  me  to  appreciate,  seem  to  take  a  pleasure 
in  imputing  the  basest  motives  for  the  public  actions  of  men 
with  whom  they  happen  to  differ,  and  suggest  that  I  only 
joined  the  Government  with  a  preconceived  determination 
to  leave  it  at  the  first  opportunity.  The  statement  is  not 
only  utterly  untrue,  but  it  is  ridiculous.  (Mr.  Gladstone  : 
Hear,  hear.)  I  will  say  to  the  House  that  no  act  of  my 
public  life  has  been  so  painful  as  the  resignation  which  I 
recently  tendered  to  my  right  honourable  friend.  I  am  told 
that  by  taking  that  step  I  have  wrecked  my  political  prospects, 
and  destroyed  altogether  all  hope  of  future  usefulness.  Well, 
Sir,  that  is  a  prospect  which  it  is  possible  for  me  to  contemplate 
with  equanimity  ;  but  it  is  more  difllicult  to  reconcile  myself 
to  a  separation  from  one  whom  I  have  followed  and  honoured 
for  so  many  years,   and  to  leave  the  personal  friends  and 


CHAMBERLAIN  333 

political  associates  with  whom,  I  believe,  I  have  no  other 
cause  of  difference  whatever.  I  have  found  it  hard  to  give 
up  an  opportunity  which  I  thought  I  had  in  my  grasp,  to  do 
something  to  put  forward  legislation  in  which  I  take  a  great 
and  overwhelming  interest.  These  considerations  weighed 
with  me,  and  I  can  assure  the  House  that  I  have  found  it  a 
more  difficult  task  to  leave  a  Government  than  to  enter  one. 
There  is  only  one  other  remark  which  I  wish  to  make  by  way 
of  preface.  I  admit.  Sir,  that  if  any  difference  of  opinion  has 
arisen  between  myself  and  my  right  honourable  friend,  with 
his  unrivalled  experience,  with  his  vast  knowledge  of  public 
affairs,  and  with  his  loving  and  tried  devotion  to  the  public 
service,  the  natural  presumption  is  that  he  is  right  and  that  I 
am  wrong.  It  is  one  to  which  I  have  yielded  my  own  judgment 
on  many  occasions  ;  but  in  the  present  instance  the  issue 
before  us  is  one  of  such  vital  importance,  and  a  mistake,  if 
we  make  one,  is  so  fatal  and  so  irrevocable  that  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  the  duty  of  every  man,  however  humble,  to  bring  an 
independent  judgment  to  its  consideration  ;  and  everything — 
private  feeling,  personal  friendship,  political  ambition,  and  the 
cherished  objects  of  a  public  life — all  these  must  be  put  aside 
in  view  of  circumstances  which  are  stiU  higher  and  more 
important.  Since  I  have  been  in  public  affairs  I  have  called 
myself,  I  think  not  altogether  without  reason,  a  Radical. 
But  that  title  has  never  prevented  me  from  giving  great  con- 
sideration to  Imperial  interests.  I  have  cared  for  the  honour 
and  the  influence  and  the  integrity  of  the  Empire,  and  it  is 
because  I  beheve  these  things  are  now  in  danger  that  I  have 
felt  myself  called  upon  to  make  the  greatest  sacrifice  that  any 
public  man  can  be  expected  to  make.  It  will  be  in  the  recol- 
lection of  the  House  that  the  late  Government  were  defeated 
on  the  26th  of  January,  on  a  motion  which  was  made  by  my 
friend,  Mr.  Jesse  CoUings,  and  which  raised  what  has  sometimes 
been  called  the  "  unauthorised  programme,"  although  I  never 
admitted  the  justice  of  that  description.  But  it  wiU  be 
admitted  that  by  that  Resolution  the  House  did  undoubtedly 
pledge  itself  generally  to  the  policy  with  which  I  happened 
to  be  conspicuously  identified  during  the  Autumn  campaign  ; 
and,  accordingly,  when  my  right  honourable  friend,  on  the 
30th  of  January,  did  me  the  honour  to  invite  me  to  become 
a  Member  of  the  Government,  I  was  able  to  teU  him   that 


334  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

I  would  allow  no  personal  considerations  whatever  to  stand 
in  the  way  of  my  giving  him  any  support  I  could  possibly 
bring  to  him  ;  but  I  felt  it  necessary  to  add  that  the  reports 
that  were  current  as  to  his  intentions  with  regard  to  Ireland 
made  me  somewhat  doubtful  whether  I  could  possibly  be  of 
service.  My  right  honourable  friend  was  good  enough  to  tell 
me  that  he  had  not  up  to  that  day  formed  any  definite  plan  ; 
that  he  had  only  committed  himself  to  inquiry ;  and  that  if 
I  joined  him  I  should  be  perfectly  free  to  judge  and  to  decide 
upon  anything  which  would  be  submitted  to  the  Cabinet. 
My  right  honourable  friend  said  that  he  adhered  to  his  pre- 
vious public  utterances,  and  all  he  asked  his  colleagues  was  to 
join  with  him  in  an  inquiry  and  examination  as  to  how  far  it 
was  or  was  not  practicable  to  meet  the  wishes  of  the  great 
proportion  of  the  Irish  people,  as  expressed  by  the  return  of 
a  large  majority  of  representatives  to  Parliament,  to  form 
something  in  the  nature  of  a  legislative  body  sitting  in  Dublin. 
My  right  honourable  friend  added  that  any  possible  concession 
in  this  direction  would  be  accompanied  by  full  and  ample 
guarantees  for  the  security  and  integrity  of  the  Empire,  for 
the  protection  of  minorities  of  all  classes  of  the  community, 
and  for  the  protection  of  the  just  interests  of  the  Three  King- 
doms. I  told  my  right  honourable  friend  that  this  was  an 
inquiry  of  which  I  approved,  and  which,  indeed,  I  thought  had 
become  indispensable.  I  told  him  that  I  thought  the  con- 
ditions which  he  had  fixed  to  any  possible  concession  were  just, 
reasonable,  and  adequate  conditions  ;  but  I  went  on  to  say 
that  I  thought  it  was  honest  to  state  that,  as  far  as  I  was  able 
to  make  up  my  mind,  or  to  form  any  kind  of  judgment,  I  did 
not  believe  that  he  would  find  it  possible  to  conciliate  these 
conditions  and  limitations  with  the  establishment  of  a  separate 
and  practically  independent  Parhament  in  Dublin.  My  right 
honourable  friend  did  not  think  that  that  opinion  so  expressed 
by  me  ought  to  be  a  bar  to  my  joining  his  Government.  I 
asked  his  leave  to  put  my  views  in  writing,  and,  if  the  House 
will  permit  me,  I  will  read  the  letter  in  which  I  accepted  office. 
It  is  as  follows — 

40,  Prince's  Gardens,  S.W., 

January  30,   1886. 
My  dear  Mr.  Gladstone, 

I  have  availed  myself  of  the  opportunity  you  have  kindly  afforded 
me  to  consider  further  your  offer  of  a  seat  in  your  Government.     I 


CHAMBERLAIN  335 

recognise  the  justice  of  your  view  that  the  question  of  Ireland  is  para- 
mount to  all  others,  and  must  first  engage  your  attention.  The  state- 
ment of  your  intention  to  examine  whether  it  is  practicable  to  comply 
with  the  wishes  of  the  majority  of  the  Irish  people,  as  testified  by  the 
return  of  eighty-five  representatives  of  the  Nationalist  Party,  does  not 
go  beyond  your  previous  public  declarations,  while  the  conditions 
which  you  attach  to  the  possibility  of  such  compliance  seem  to  me 
adequate,  and  are  also  in  accordance  with  your  repeated  public  utter- 
ances. But  I  have  already  thought  it  due  to  you  to  say  that,  according 
to  my  present  judgment,  it  will  not  be  found  possible  to  conciliate  those 
conditions  with  the  establishment  of  a  National  Legislative  Body 
sitting  in  Dublin  ;  and  I  have  explained  my  own  preference  for  an 
attempt  to  come  to  terms  with  the  Irish  members  on  the  basis  of  a 
more  limited  scheme  of  Local  Government,  coupled  with  proposals  for 
a  settlement  of  the  land,  and,  perhaps,  also,  of  the  Education  Question. 
You  have  been  kind  enough,  after  hearing  these  opinions,  to  repeat  your 
request  that  I  should  join  your  Government,  and  you  have  explained 
that,  in  this  case,  I  shall  retain  '  unlimited  hberty  of  judgment  and 
rejection  '  on  any  scheme  that  may  ultimately  be  proposed,  and  that 
the  full  consideration  of  such  minor  proposals  as  I  have  referred  to  as 
an  alternative  to  any  larger  arrangement  will  not  be  excluded  by  you. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  have  no  difficulty  in  assuring  you  of  my  readiness 
to  give  an  unprejudiced  examination  to  any  more  extensive  proposals 
that  may  be  made,  with  an  anxious  desire  that  the  result  may  be  more 
favourable  than  I  am  at  present  able  to  anticipate.  In  the  circum- 
stances, and  with  the  most  earnest  hope  that  I  may  be  able  in  any  way 
to  assist  you  in  your  difficult  work,  I  beg  to  accept  the  offer  you  have 
made  to  submit  my  name  to  Her  Majesty  for  a  post  in  the  new 
Government. 

I  am,  my  dear  Mr.  Gladstone, 

Yours  sincerely, 

J.  Chamberlain, 

Well,  Sir,  I  have  been  blamed,  like  my  right  honourable 
friend  the  member  for  the  Border  Burghs,  for  joining  the 
Government  at  all ;  but  I  think  a  moment's  reflection  will 
show  that  any  accusation  of  this  kind,  at  aU  events,  based  upon 
my  action  would  be  entirely  unreasonable.  I  have  never  been 
opposed  to  Home  Rule,  as  I  have  explained,  and  as  I  have 
always  understood,  the  words,  and  as  my  right  honourable 
friend  the  Prime  Minister  has  on  many  public  occasions  defined 
it.  The  definitions  of  my  right  honourable  friend,  those  which 
I  have  accepted,  are  these — that  he  has  been  wilhng  as  I  have 
been  willing,  to  give  to  Ireland  the  largest  possible  extension 
of  local  government  consistent  with  the  integrity  of  the  Empire 
and  the  supremacy  of  Parliament ;  and,  further,  my  right 
honourable  friend  has  always  declared  he  would  never  offer 


336  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

to  Ireland  anything  in  the  direction  of  Home  Rule  which  he 
was  not  prepared  to  offer  with  an  equal  hand  to  Scotland  and 
other  parts  of  the  United  Kingdom.  If,  now,  Sir,  to  my  deep 
regret  and  with  the  greatest  possible  reluctance,  I  have  felt 
compelled  to  sever  myself  from  the  Government  of  my  right 
honourable  friend,  it  is  because  in  my  heart  and  conscience  I 
do  not  think  the  scheme  which  he  explained  to  the  House  last 
night  does  maintain  the  limitations  which  he  has  always 
declared  himself  determined  to  preserve.  I  confess,  if  I  had 
refused  at  this  time  to  join  the  Government  to  undertake  an 
inquiry  so  limited,  and  under  these  conditions,  then  I  think 
there  would  have  been  some  reason  to  say  that  I  was  animated 
by  a  disloyal  feeling  towards  my  Leader,  or  that  I  was  careless 
of  the  interests  of  the  Party  with  which  I  am  connected.  Now, 
Sir,  I  admit  that  in  all  probability  the  misunderstanding 
was  entirely  my  own  fault.  I  certainly  assumed  that  the 
inquiry  my  right  honourable  friend  spoke  of  would  be  under- 
taken by  him  in  concert  with  his  colleagues.  I  imagined  that 
it  was  intended  to  proceed  with  the  examination  step  by  step 
in  the  Cabinet,  and  that  after  full  consultation  we  were  all  to 
be  called  upon  to  endeavour  to  build  up  some  scheme  which 
would  fulfil  the  intentions  of  the  Prime  Minister.  But,  as  I 
say,  I  must  have  misunderstood  my  right  honourable  friend 
in  this  particular,  because  it  was  not  until  the  13th  of  March 
that  this  matter  was  mentioned  for  the  first  time  in  the  Cabinet. 
It  was  then  brought  forward  in  connection  with  the  scheme 
for  land  purchase  which  had  been  circulated  to  members  of 
the  Cabinet  the  day  before.  The  scheme  contained  in  this 
paper  was  certainly  to  me  a  very  startling  proposal,  involving 
the  issue  of  ^^120,000,000  Consols— 

Mr.  Gladstone  :  I  must  interrupt  my  right  honourable 
friend.  I  beg  to  observe  that  the  permission  which  I  obtained 
from  Her  Majesty  on  his  behalf  had  no  relation  whatever 
to  any  particulars  of  any  scheme  with  regard  to  the  sale  or 
purchase  of  land  to  be  submitted  to  the  House  of  Commons. 
I  did  not  ask  Her  Majesty  for  any  permission  for  anyone  to 
speak  upon  a  subject  on  which  a  final  decision  of  the  Cabinet 
had  not  been  taken,  and  which  had  not  been  pubUcly  explained 
to  Parliament.  I  may  add  that  any  attempt,  or  any  partial 
attempt,  to  enter  upon  any  supposed  particulars  of  that  scheme 
would  lead  to  radical  misunderstanding. 


CHAMBERLAIN  337 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  I  cannot  say,  Sir,  how  much  I  regret 
the  misunderstanding  which  has  arisen  between  my  right 
honourable  friend  and  myself.  I  need  not  say  to  the  House 
that  if  I  had  had  the  slightest  conception  that  my  right  honour- 
able friend  had  intended  to  limit  in  the  way  he  now  says 
my  explanation  to  the  House,  either  I  would  have  withheld 
that  explanation  altogether  until  a  more  fitting  opportunity, 
or,  at  least,  I  would  not,  in  the  slightest  degree,  have  gone 
from  any  arrangement  that  had  been  come  to.  I  am  very 
sorry  that  I  have  not  with  me  my  correspondence  with  my 
right  honourable  friend  to  obtain  for  me  permission  from  Her 
Majesty  to  explain  the  causes  which  had  led  to  my  resigna- 
tion. Why,  Sir,  I  did  not  resign  upon  the  scheme  of  Home 
Rule  alone.  I  tendered  my  resignation  after  this  scheme  of 
land  purchase  had  been  produced,  and  in  consequence  of  the 
production  of  that  scheme  of  land  purchase.  How  can  I 
explain  the  reason  of  my  resignation  to  the  House  if  my  hands 
are  tied  behind  me  ?  But,  Sir,  I  go  further  than  that.  My 
right  honourable  friend,  in  reply  to  my  request  that  I  might 
have  permission  to  explain  the  cause  of  my  resignation,  wrote 
to  me  a  letter  to  the  effect  that  he  had  obtained  the  permission 
of  Her  Majesty  that  I  might  state  the  reasons — I  forget  the 
exact  words,  but  I  think  he  will  agree  that  I  am  giving  the 
sense — which  led  to  my  resignation  "  in  connection  with  the 
scheme  for  the  Government  of  Ireland."  (Mr.  Gladstone  : 
Hear,  hear.)  I  thought  that  that  was  a  doubtful  expression.  I 
was  afraid  that  it  might  mean  some  kind  of  limitation.  What 
did  I  do  ?  I  wrote  to  my  right  honourable  friend  to  state  to 
him  that  I  proposed  to  read  to  the  House  of  Commons  a  letter 
I  had  written  after  the  Cabinet  meeting  at  which  the  land 
scheme  was  discussed,  and  in  which  I  stated  my  reasons  for 
objecting  to  the  land  scheme,  and  my  right  honourable  friend 
gave  me  his  permission,  and  said  :    "  By  all  means." 

Mr.  Gladstone  :  Mr.  Speaker,  from  my  right  honourable 
friend  I  understood  that  he,  having  in  his  hands  the  note 
which  I  had  written  to  him  as  to  the  permission  which  I  had 
obtained  from  Her  Majesty,  proposed  to  read  all  the  letters 
which  he  had  written  in  relation  to  the  subject-matter  of  that 
note.  I  replied  to  my  right  honourable  friend  that  in  my 
opinion  he  was  perfectly  justified  in  exercising  his  own  dis- 
cretion upon  that  subject.     That  is  perfectly  true,  and  I  do 

22 — (2171) 


338  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

not  think  anything  beyond  that  would  be  found  to  have  been 
included  in  the  scope  of  the  note  from  me  to  which  my  right 
honourable  friend  has  referred,  but  which,  unfortunately,  he 
has  not  got  with  him. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  Sir,  I  certainly  have  not  got  the 
correspondence  in  my  possession  ;  but  I  could  not  have 
conceived  that  this  most  painful  altercation — difference  of 
opinion — could  possibly  have  arisen.  I  am  sorry  to  differ 
from  my  right  honourable  friend.  I  think  his  view  is  mistaken. 
What  I  asked  his  permission  to  read — I  am  sure  he  will  find 
it  in  my  letter — was  my  letter  of  March  15,  1886.  His  per- 
mission to  me  was  to  read  that  letter.  I  beg  to  ask  my  right 
honourable  friend  whether  he  wishes  to  withdraw  that 
permission  now. 

Mr.  Gladstone  :  I  cannot  at  this  moment  recollect  what 
letter  it  was  which  my  right  honourable  friend  wrote  to  me 
on  the  15th  of  March.  I  have  stated,  I  think,  with  perfect 
exactitude  the  substance  of  my  statement  to  him. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  I  must  say  my  right  honourable 
friend  puts  me  in  a  most  difficult  position.  I  have  to  decide 
at  a  moment's  notice,  with  the  greatest  respect  for  my  right 
honourable  friend,  what  course  I  shall  pursue.  I  have 
again  to  repeat  that  in  the  letter  which  I  wrote  to  my  right 
honourable  friend,  I  gave  him  the  dates  of  all  the  letters  and 
documents  which  I  proposed  to  read.  I  proposed  to  read 
certain  letters  of  his,  and  I  asked  whether  he  had  any  objection 
to  my  reading  them.  In  his  reply  he  said  he  thought  it  was 
unnecessary  and  undesirable,  and  he  also  objected  to  my 
reading  another  document  which  I  had  mentioned.  I  rephed 
to  him  that  I  should  certainly  be  guided  by  his  wishes,  and  I 
should  content  myself  with  reading  my  own  letters,  and  should 
not  read  anything  I  received  from  him.  My  right  honourable 
friend  says  he  is  not  aware  of  the  contents  of  one  of  those 
letters,  the  most  important,  the  one  I  described  to  him  in  my 
letters  as  dated  March  15th,  and  as  containing  my  reasons 
for  my  resignation.  He  says  he  is  not  aware  of  the  contents 
of  that  letter.  I  cannot  say  whether  my  right  honourable 
friend  thinks  I  am  entitled  to  read  it  or  not.  If  my  right 
honourable  friend  cannot  give  me  permission  to  read  that 
letter  I  shall  not  press  it. 

Mr.   Gladstone  :     I   have   stated   the   full   extent   of   the 


CHAMBERLAIN  339 

permission  received  from  Her  Majesty  by  me  on  behalf  of  my 
right  honourable  friend.  It  is  not  in  my  power  to  extend 
that  permission  ;  and  I  think  it  would  be  entirely  contrary, 
alike  to  principle  and  to  precedent,  that  explanations  should 
be  entered  into  upon  this  occasion  referring  to  a  measure  of 
very  great  importance  about  to  be  introduced  to  this  House  by 
me,  but  the  introduction  of  which  has  not  been  moved. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  I  shall  endeavour,  Sir,  to  guide  myself 
by  the  wishes  of  my  right  honourable  friend.  But  the  House 
will  see  that  in  the  circumstances  the  explanation  which  I 
had  proposed  to  offer  them  must  be  altogether  lame  and 
incomplete.  It  is  impossible  that  I  should  ever  at  any 
future  time,  any  more  than  now,  justify  myself  completely 
to  the  country  or  to  the  House  of  Commons.  I  cannot  do  so 
when  my  right  honourable  friend  introduces  his  Land  BiU, 
because  he  will  teU  you  then  that  it  is  not  competent  for  me 
to  speak  on  his  Home  Rule  scheme. 

Mr,  Gladstone  :    No,  no. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  Well,  it  does  not  rest  entirely  with 
my  right  honourable  friend,  and  if  he  makes  no  objection 
the  Speaker  will  call  me  to  order,  and  it  will  be  impossible  for 
me,  in  discussing  the  land  purchase  scheme,  except  by  consent 
of  the  House,  to  deal  with  the  question  of  Home  Rule.  I  was 
only  anxious  to  refer  to  the  scheme  for  land  purchase — I  was 
not  going  elaborately  into  details,  but  dealing  only  with  those 
general  principles — so  far  as  was  absolutely  necessary  to  show 
to  the  House  what  was  the  nature  of  my  opposition  to  the 
combined  scheme  of  my  right  honourable  friend.  I  wiU  endea- 
vour to  continue  what  explanation  it  may  still  be  possible  for 
me  to  make  with  regard  to  that  portion  of  my  objection  to  the 
policy  of  my  right  honourable  friend  which  refers  to  his  pro- 
posals for  the  government  of  Ireland.  I  understood  from  my 
right  honourable  friend  on  the  day  of  which  I  am  speaking, 
that  he  intended  to  propose  to  Parliament  the  establishment 
of  a  Parliament  in  Dublin  with  very  large  powers,  and  he  gave 
some  explanation  also  of  the  fiscal  relations  which  would  exist 
between  this  Parliament  and  the  English  Parhament.  It  was 
after  this  Cabinet  meeting,  as  I  have  said — it  was  held  on  the 
13th — that  on  the  15th  I  wrote  to  my  right  honourable  friend 
the  letter  which  I  had  intended  to  read  to  the  House,  and  which 
contained  the  reasons  why  I  had  objected  to  any  considerable 


340  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

employment  of  English  credit  for  the  purpose  of  buying  out 
the  Irish  landlords,  and  also  why  I  thought  the  new  authority 
was  one  which  it  would  be  unwise  and  inexpedient  to  trust 
with  the  possession  of  the  land  so  bought,  with  the  collection 
of  the  rents,  and  with  the  payment  to  this  country  of  the 
necessary  interest  and  Sinking  Fund.  My  right  honourable 
friend  in  reply  to  that  letter,  told  me,  without  entering  into 
any  argument,  that  he  thought  my  resignation  was  premature, 
and  that  it  would  be  right  that  I  should,  at  all  events,  postpone 
it  until  he  had  been  able  to  complete  his  scheme  for  local 
government  in  Ireland,  and  had  submitted  it  to  the  Cabinet. 
In  accordance  with  his  request,  therefore,  I  postponed  my 
resignation  until  he  should  be  in  a  position  to  make  his  state- 
ment, which  was  on  the  26th  of  March,  the  next  time  the  Cabinet 
met.  Well,  I  gathered  at  that  time  that  as  regards  the  land 
proposals  they  were  practically  and  in  principle  unaltered. 
But  that  is  a  matter  on  which  I  do  not  wish  to  insist,  as  I  am 
unable  to  tell  the  House  what  they  were  originally.  It  is  not 
really  of  the  slightest  consequence  whether  they  were  altered 
or  not ;  but  I  was  going  to  say  that  my  right  honourable  friend 
stated  at  this  meeting  the  general  heads  of  the  scheme  for  the 
government  of  Ireland  which  he  expounded  so  eloquently 
last  night.  I  took  four  principal  objections  to  this  proposal. 
I  objected  to  it,  in  the  first  instance,  because  it  proposed  to 
terminate  the  representation  of  the  Irish  members  at  West- 
minster. I  objected  to  that  because  of  the  consequences 
which  follow  upon  it.  It  appeared  to  me  that  if  the  Irish 
members  were  to  cease  to  occupy  their  seats  in  this  House,  the 
Irish  Parliament  to  which  they  were  to  be  relegated  must  be, 
ought  to  be,  and  would  be,  in  the  future  if  not  in  the  present, 
co-ordinate  and  of  co-equal  authority.  Then  I  objected,  in 
the  second  place,  to  the  proposal  which  at  this  time  my  right 
honourable  friend  made,  to  renounce  all  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  Imperial  taxation  in  Ireland,  including,  of  course, 
Customs  and  Excise.  I  objected,  in  the  third  place,  to  the 
surrender  of  the  appointment  of  the  judges  and  of  the  magis- 
trates. And  I  objected,  in  the  last  place,  to  the  principle 
under  which  my  right  honourable  friend  proposed  to  make  the 
new  authority  supreme  in  all  matters  which  were  not  excluded 
from  its  competence  ;  whereas  I  thought  the  right  principle 
in  any  such  proposal  would  be  to  confer  upon  it  authority  only 


CHAMBERLAIN  341 

in  those  cases  in  which  the  authority  was  specially  and  by 
statute  delegated.  In  these  circumstances  I  again  tendered 
my  resignation,  and  it  was  accepted  the  next  day.  Now  the 
House  will  see  that  since  I  left  the  Cabinet  there  has  been  one 
very  important  change  in  the  proposals.  The  Customs  and 
Excise  are  now  to  be  collected  and  levied  by  an  Imperial 
authority.  Well,  Sir,  I  ought  to  be  pleased  ;  but  I  confess  I 
am  doubtful.  I  am  very  glad,  of  course,  that  the  arguments 
which  I  used  in  the  Cabinet  had  much  greater  force  after  I 
left  than  they  had  while  I  remained.  At  the  same  time, 
however,  the  concession  does  not  appear  to  me  to  have  gone  far 
enough.  I  connected  the  collection  of  Customs  and  Excise 
with  the  continued  presence  of  Irish  members  in  this  House  ; 
and  under  the  system  proposed  by  my  right  honourable  friend 
you  have  an  anomaly  which  I  cannot  help  thinking  the  Irish 
members  themselves  must  feel  intolerable  and  degrading. 
("  No,  no ! ")  They  are  the  sole  judges  in  such  a  matter. 
(Cheers.)  I  think  honourable  members  are  cheering  me  a  little 
too  soon.  I  believe  they  are  the  sole  judges  as  to  their  own 
sentiments,  and  not,  of  course,  of  what  this  Imperial  Parliament 
should  do.  Well,  all  I  can  say  is  that  the  new  proposal  seems 
to  me  to  be  inconsistent  with  what  I  understand  my  right 
honourable  friend  laid  down  as  a  cardinal  principle  of  our 
English  Constitution — namely,  that  taxation  and  representation 
should  go  together.  (Home  Rule  cheers.)  Honourable  mem- 
bers opposite  seem  inclined  to  accept  this  arrangement ;  so  I 
judge  from  their  cheers  ;  but  all  I  can  say  is  that  the  honourable 
member  for  Cork  (Mr.  Parnell)  has  again  and  again,  in  his 
public  speeches,  stated  in  the  most  emphatic  way  that  he 
would  not  be  satisfied  with  any  Parliament  which  did  not  leave 
the  Customs  and  the  Excise,  and  the  right,  if  necessary,  to  put 
a  protective  duty  on  Irish  industries,  with  the  Irish  Authorities. 

Mr.  Parnell  :  I  have  said  frequently,  Sir,  that  I  should 
claim  that  right  for  the  Irish  people  ;  but  the  right  honourable 
gentleman,  the  Prime  Minister,  has  certainly,  in  his  speech 
yesterday,  been  enabled  to  show  us  that  we  are  getting  a  very 
good  quid  pro  quo  in  exchange  for  giving  up  this  right  of  collecting 
the  Customs,  in  the  shape  of  £1,400,000  a  year. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  Yes,  I  was  coming  to  that  later  on, 
when  I  have  to  consider  the  price  which  is  being  paid  for  the 
scheme  of  Home  Rule  which  is  submitted  to  our  consideration. 


342  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

I  notice  in  the  scheme,  as  announced  to  the  House 
last  night,  several  other — I  will  not  call  them  changes,  but 
developments  of  the  scheme  with  which  I  was  not  previ- 
ously acquainted.  For  instance,  I  find  that  from  the  Irish 
Parliament  are  to  be  excluded  such  matters  as  copyright, 
matters  connected  with  the  currency,  coining,  probably  the 
Post  Office,  and  then  comes  the  very  large  question  of  trade 
and  navigation.  Now,  I  confess  I  am  very  anxious  to  know, 
and  I  hope  some  member  of  the  Government  will  explain, 
exactly  what  is  meant  by  trade  and  navigation.  Of  course, 
I  assume  that  the  Irish  authorities  in  these  circumstances  will 
not  be  enabled  to  give  a  bounty  for  the  encouragement  of  any 
local  industry.  I  assume — I  do  not  know  whether  I  am  right 
— that  such  a  question  as  patents  will  be  altogether  excluded 
from  their  competence.  I  assume  that  such  a  question  as 
bankruptcy  would  also  be  excluded  from  their  competence. 
These  are  matters  which  require  explanation,  and  what  I 
wish  to  say  at  this  moment  is  that  if  all  these  things  are  to  be 
taken  out  of  the  Irish  Parliament  and  are  to  be  dealt  with  by 
the  English  Parliament,  in  which  the  Irish  have  no  repre- 
sentation at  all,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  they  would  have 
a  very  real  and  considerable  grievance.  I  think  the  commer- 
cial classes  of  Ireland,  for  instance,  will  complain  about  the 
question  of  bankruptcy.  At  the  present  time  Ireland  and 
Scotland  both  have  separate  Bankruptcy  Laws  from  the 
Bankruptcy  Laws  of  England.  How  on  earth  will  the  Irish 
be  satisfied  to  have  their  commercial  law,  which  is  to  suit 
their  particular  idiosyncrasies  and  requirements,  dictated  to 
them  at  Westminster,  when  they  have  not  one  single  repre- 
sentative to  express  their  views  in  the  House  of  Commons  ? 

Sir  William  Harcourt  :     It  will  not  include  bankruptcy. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  Then  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean 
by  trade.  I  hope  I  am  not  going  beyond  the  limitation 
which  has  been  imposed  on  me  when  I  say  briefly  my  objec- 
tion is  not  to  one  portion  of  the  scheme,  but  to  the  scheme  as 
a  whole.  I  object  to  either  part  of  the  scheme.  I  object — 
I  will  not  say  to  the  proposal  of  my  right  honourable  friend, 
because  I  do  not  know  what  it  is — I  shall  not  know  until  he 
has  explained  it  in  the  final  form  which  it  has  received — but 

I  know  this — that  whatever  it  is  I  shall  object  if  it  lays 

(ironical  Home  Rule  cheers).     I  must  say  that   the  zeal  of 


CHAMBERLAIN  343 

honourable  members  opposite  overleaps  itself.  I  am  not 
hostile  to  the  scheme  of  land  purchase.  What  I  was  going 
to  say  when  I  was  interrupted  was  that  I  should  object  to  any 
scheme  which  laid  on  the  British  taxpayer  a  tremendous 
liability,  and  what  I  thought  to  be  an  excessive  risk.  Above 
all,  I  should  object  to  any  scheme  that  was  intended  only 
as  a  bribe  to  Irish  landlords  to  induce  them  to  modify  their 
hostility  to  a  scheme  of  Home  Rule,  and  which  did  not  give 
evidence  of  an  essential  and  considerable  advantage  for  Irish 
tenants,  who  are  a  class,  the  poorer  tenants  especially,  deserving 
of  sympathy  and  assistance.  Then  I  objected  to  the  new 
authority  proposed  to  be  erected,  because  it  was  certain  to 
become  practically  independent.  The  scheme  was  one  for 
separation  and  not  for  Home  Rule.  I  objected  to  the  two 
together,  because  they  seemed  to  me  to  combine  the  maximum 
of  risk  and  the  minimum  of  advantage,  and  the  utmost  possible 
sacrifice  for  an  object  which  I  did  not  believe  it  to  be  worth 
our  while  to  strive  to  attain — I  do  not  wish  to  be  misunder- 
stood— the  object,  of  course,  being  the  creation  of  a  separate 
statutory  Parliament  in  Dublin.  I  wanted  to  have  said  some- 
thing more  about  the  land,  but  I  pass  over  that.  Only  I 
will  say  this — a  perfectly  general  remark  also,  and  applying 
almost  to  any  scheme  of  land  purchase  as  an  inseparable 
adjunct  to  a  scheme  which,  in  my  opinion,  practically  will 
place  Ireland  in  the  position  of  Canada.  Now,  I  want  to  test 
that  illustration  of  Canada.  Canada  is  loyal  and  friendly  to 
this  country.  Ireland,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  at  the  present  time, 
is  not  loyal,  and  cannot  be  called  friendly.  But  if  Canada 
came  to  this  House,  and  asked  for  any  large  use  of  British 
credit  in  order  to  buy  Canadian  land,  or  to  carry  out  public 
works  in  Canada,  why,  it  would  be  scouted  from  one  end  of  the 
Kingdom  to  the  other.  Well,  then,  how  can  it  possibly  be 
right  for  us  to  give  to  Ireland  what  we  refuse  to  Canada,  when 
the  sole  result  of  the  scheme,  after  all,  is  that  we  are  going  to 
try  to  put  Ireland  in  the  position  in  which  Canada  has  been 
for  many  years  ?  I  said  I  should  object  to  any  scheme  that 
involves  the  British  taxpayer  in  excessive  risks.  Why  is  the 
risk  of  any  scheme  excessive  ?  I  have  been  myself  an  advo- 
cate of  large  schemes  in  England  and  Scotland,  intended,  by 
the  use  of  public  money,  to  turn  a  smaU  tenant  into  the 
proprietor   of   the   land   that   he   tilled.      I   have   not   been 


344  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

unwilling  to  take  the  risk  in  such  a  case.  But  what  I  object  to 
is  to  take  a  risk  for  what  I  believe  in  a  short  time  will  be  a 
foreign  country.  For  an  integral  part  of  the  United  Kingdom 
I  am  prepared  to  take  a  risk  ;  I  am  not  prepared  to  take  a  risk 
in  order  to  promote  what  is,  in  my  judgment,  a  thinly  veiled 
scheme  of  separation.  The  fact  is,  that  the  key  to  the  whole 
situation  is  the  proposal  to  exclude  Irish  members  from  this 
House.  I  do  not  wonder  that  that  is  a  proposal  which  has 
many  attractions  both  for  Liberal  and  Conservative  mem- 
bers. The  honourable  member  for  Cork  has  often  shown 
that  he  can  be  in  this  House  a  most  agreeable  colleague  ;  but 
I  am  sure  he  will  not  think  me  offensive  if  I  say  that  he  and  his 
friends  have  also  shown  that  they  can  be  very  disagreeable 
at  times.  He,  in  one  of  his  speeches,  threatened  that  if  his 
demands  were  not  complied  with  he  would  make  all 
legislation  impossible. 

Mr.  Parnell  :    I  never  threatened  anything  of  the  kind. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  I  am  most  glad  to  accept  the  denial 
of  the  honourable  member  ;  but  I  can  show  him  the  paper  in 
which  the  words  appeared.     No  doubt,  the  report  is  inaccurate. 

Mr.  Parnell  :  Perhaps  the  right  honourable  gentleman  will 
read  the  passage. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  I  have  not  got  it  with  me  ;  but  I 
will  send  to  the  honourable  member,  if  he  Ukes,  the  passage, 
the  date,  and  the  place  where  the  speech  is  alleged  to  have 
been  made.  But  I  do  not  want  to  press  it,  and  I  readily 
accept  his  statement  that  he  never  said  so.  However, 
whether  he  said  it  or  not,  there  are  many  people  who  think 
he  would  have  the  power  to  do  something  of  that  kind  ;  and 
that  fact  weighs  very  much  with  English  and  Scotch  members 
in  the  desire  that  they,  at  all  events,  should  be  left  alone  to 
carry  on  English  and  Scotch  business  without  Irish  assist- 
ance. I  sympathise  with  that  feeling  ;  but  I  want  to  point 
out  to  the  House  that  you  must  take  the  consequence  of  that. 
It  is  quite  unreasonable  to  turn  out  the  Irish  members  from 
this  House  and  leave  them  entirely  unrepresented  in  reference 
to  matters  in  which  Irish  interests  are  largely  concerned  and 
which  are  dealt  with  by  the  Imperial  Parliament.  Just  con- 
sider it.  Already,  under  the  scheme  of  the  Prime  Minister,  the 
Customs  and  the  Excise  are  to  be  taken  from  their  control  ; 
all  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown  are  to  be  removed  from  their 


CHAMBERLAIN  345 

competence  to  deal  with,  as  are  also  the  Army  and  the  Navy, 
and  Foreign  and  Colonial  policy.  Are  the  Irish  members  of 
opinion  that  the  Irish  people  would  be  permanently  content 
to  be  shut  out  from  all  part  in  the  Imperial  policy  of  this 
country  ?  I  was  going  to  quote  the  honourable  member  for 
Cork  again,  but  also  from  memory.  He  will  tell  me  if  I  am 
wrong.  I  think  that  in  one  of  his  speeches  he  said  something 
to  the  effect  that  he  would  never  be  satisfied  until  Ireland  took 
her  fuU  place  among  the  nations  of  the  world.  That  is,  I 
ihink,  a  patriotic  aspiration  ;  but  I  would  point  out  that  it 
never  can  be  realised  under  the  scheme  of  my  right  honourable 
friend.  How  can  Ireland  take  her  place  among  the  nations 
of  the  world  when  her  mouth  is  closed  on  every  international 
question  ?  Ireland  is  to  have  no  part  in  the  arrangement  of 
commercial  treaties,  by  which  her  interests  may  be  seriously 
affected.  She  will  have  no  part  whatever  in  deciding  thepolicy 
under  which  war  may  break  out,  in  which  her  sentiment  may 
be  strongly  engaged  on  one  side  or  the  other,  or  which  may  put 
in  serious  peril  her  own  coast  and  her  own  people.  She  is  to 
have  no  part  in  the  control  of  the  Army  and  Navy  of  this 
country.  That  is  extraordinary,  because  the  annals  of  our 
Army  show  that  there  have  been  no  more  illustrious  members 
of  that  Army  than  Irishmen  ;  and  Irishmen,  under  this  scheme, 
are  to  be  content  to  be  sent  to  battle  and  to  death  for  matters 
which  Irish  representatives  are  to  have  no  voice  in  discussing 
and  determining.  I  say  that  Ireland,  under  these  circum- 
stances, is  asked  to  occupy  a  position  of  degradation  ;  and  I 
venture  to  predict  that,  whatever  honourable  members  may 
now  do  in  order  to  maintain  this  instalment  of  their  demands, 
their  own  countrymen  will  never  rest  satisfied  with  such  an 
inadequate  concession.  Again,  Ireland  is  to  pay  a  fixed  con- 
tribution to  the  Army  and  Navy,  in  which  she  is  to  have  no 
part ;  but  that  contribution  is  not  to  be  increased  if  England 
gets  into  difficulty  or  into  war.  It  may  be  that  in  the  most 
terrible  crisis  of  the  fate  of  the  Empire  Ireland  is  expected  to 
be  indifferent  and  unaffected,  contributing  not  one  single 
penny  in  order  to  secure  the  safety  of  the  State  or  the  Realm 
of  which  she  is  supposed  to  form  a  part.  Where,  in  all  this, 
is  the  integrity  of  the  Empire  ?  There  is  another  point  which 
I  had  almost  omitted,  but  which,  I  think,  will  be  interesting 
to  honourable  members  opposite.     My  right  honourable  friend 


346  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

raised  a  smile  when  he  imagined  himself  in  the  position  of  an 
Irish  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  proposing  an  Irish  budget ; 
and  certainly  I  think  that  my  right  honourable  friend  would 
never  have  a  more  difficult  task  to  perform  than  if  he  had  to 
propose  and  recommend  the  first  Budget  presented  to  the  new 
Irish  Parliament.  I  do  not  wonder  that  the  honourable 
member  for  Cork  complained,  from  his  point  of  view,  of  this 
part  of  the  scheme.  I  do  not  wonder  that  he  asks  the  Prime 
Minister  to  be  more  liberal  to  him,  and  tells  him  that  unless 
he  is  more  liberal  the  cheerful  acceptance  of  his  scheme,  which 
he  has  asked  for,  and  made  a  condition  in  putting  it  forward, 
will  be  denied  to  him.  I  say  he  has  good  reason  to  be  alarmed. 
But  before  I  consider  the  position  of  the  Irish  taxpayer  I  wish 
to  consider  for  a  moment  the  position  of  the  English  taxpayer. 
In  this  scheme  we  shall  have  given  independence.  We  shall 
continue  to  burden  our  own  taxpayer  with  a  large  contribu- 
tion in  aid  of  the  Irish  Government.  In  the  first  place,  the 
contribution  which  Ireland  now  makes  towards  the  Imperial 
Expenditure  is  to  be  reduced  from  one  in  twelve  and  a  half  to 
one  in  fifteen.  I  think  that  my  right  honourable  friend  has 
changed  the  estimate  since  I  was  in  the  Cabinet.  No  doubt 
he  had  good  reasons  for  it.  But  I  want  to  point  out  that,  in 
any  case,  the  result  of  this  reduction  is  that  the  difference  must 
be  made  up  by  imposing  increased  taxation  on  the  British 
taxpayer.  Then  you  have  to  face  this — that  if  Ireland's  con- 
tribution is  reduced  from  one  in  twelve  and  a  half  to  one  in 
fifteen,  whatever  balance  is  required  must  come  out  of  addi- 
tional taxation.  But  that  is  not  all.  We  are  to  continue, 
as  I  understand,  to  pay  a  contribution  of  ;^500,000  a  year  for 
the  Irish  Constabulary.  The  honourable  member  for  Cork  says 
that  that  is  not  enough,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  much  more. 
Then,  if  I  followed  my  right  honourable  friend  correctly,  we  are 
also  indirectly,  in  connection  with  the  Customs  and  Excise, 
to  pay  to  Ireland  that  nice  little  sum  of  £1,400,000  which  has 
reconciled  the  honourable  member  for  Cork  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  Customs  and  Excise  from  the  work  of  the  Irish  Parlia- 
ment. But  will  this  privilege  of  buying  Customs  and  Excise 
in  Ireland  reconcile  the  English  taxpayer  to  finding  this  further 
sum  of  £1,400,000  ?  We  have  also  to  find  £500,000  for  the 
Irish  Constabulary,  and  that  makes  a  charge  altogether  of 
£1,900,000  a  year,  which,  capitalised,  amounts  to  £62,700,000, 


CHAMBERLAIN  347 

and  this  is  a  sum  which  we  are  asked  to  offer  to  Ireland  together 
with  this  scheme  of  local  government.  But  some  will  also 
object  to  this  proposal  on  behalf  of  the  Irish  taxpayer,  because 
it  is  the  peculiarity  of  this  scheme  that  it  will  be  bad  for  both 
parties.  In  the  first  place,  the  Irish  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer will  have  to  tell  his  constituents  and  the  Irish  House  of 
Commons  that  he  has  to  appropriate  £3,250,000  annually  to 
the  fixed  quota  of  Ireland  towards  the  payment  of  a  debt, 
any  obligation  in  regard  to  which  Ireland  has  never  recognised, 
and  for  the  Army  and  Navy,  in  the  control  of  which  Ireland 
will  have  no  part.  He  will  have  to  make  this  statement  year 
by  year,  and  sooner  or  later,  I  think,  his  constituents  wiU  lead 
him  a  very  evil  life.  But  that  is  not  all.  It  is  said  that  the 
Irish  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  will,  according  to  the 
scheme  of  my  right  honourable  friend,  have  an  annual  surplus 
of  £400,000  ;  but  I  would  like  to  point  out  on  what  very  slight 
foundations  it  rests.  I  believe  the  Civil  charges  of  Ireland  at 
present  amount  to  £4,730,000.  Deducting  from  that  the 
Constabulary  and  Police  contributions  of  £1,000,000  and 
£500,000  respectively,  leaves  the  Civil  charge  £3,200,000. 
But  my  right  honourable  friend,  in  his  imaginary  Budget, 
estimated  the  Civil  charges  at  £2,510,000. 

Colonel  Nolan  was  understood  to  say  that  the  cost  of 
collection  of  revenue  was  included. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  Oh  !  the  cost  of  collection  was  added 
separately,  then  I  understand  it.  I  think  my  right  honour- 
able friend  spoke  about  the  importance  of  establishing  economy 
in  Irish  expenditure,  and  I  thought  he  had  estimated  the 
economy  of  a  considerable  sum.  Then  the  observation  I 
was  going  to  make  upon  that  point  will  not  apply  ;  and, 
therefore,  so  far  as  the  expenditure  goes,  as  set  forth  in  the 
Budget  which  my  right  honourable  friend  laid  before  us  last 
night,  there  is  nothing  to  object  to.  But  as  regards  the 
revenue,  the  honourable  member  for  Cork  has  already  pointed 
out  that  £6.000.000  out  of  the  £8,000,000  depend  on  the 
Excise  and  Customs,  and  that  a  very  large  part  of  the  £6,000,000 
is  raised  from  duty  on  spirits  and  tobacco.  If,  therefore, 
there  be  any  reduction  in  the  consumption,  either  in  England 
or  Ireland,  of  spirits,  it  will  be  followed  at  once  by  a  large 
reduction  in  the  receipts  of  the  Irish  Exchequer.  But  that  is 
not  all.    I  am  told — I  do  not  know  whether  honourable  members 


348  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

opposite  will  agree  to  it — that  to  some  extent  the  trade 
of  Ireland  in  spirits  and  porter  is  threatened  by  competition 
from  Scotland  and  elsewhere.  Well,  of  course,  if  anything 
occurred  to  lessen  the  production  of  spirits  in  Ireland  and  to 
increase  the  production  in  England  or  Scotland,  the  loss  would 
fall  entirely  upon  the  Irish  Exchequer.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, what  would  the  Irish  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
have  to  do  ?  He  would  have  to  do  one  of  two  things — either 
to  levy  further  taxation  or  to  repudiate  the  obligations 
imposed  by  this  Magna  Charta  of  Ireland.  Well,  Sir,  I  thought 
the  statement  of  the  honourable  member  for  Cork  on  this 
sub]  ect  was  rather  ominous.  He  did  not  express,  by  any  means, 
hearty  approval  of  this  part  of  the  scheme.  He  did  not  give 
it  a  cheerful  acceptance.  If,  then,  we  do  not  consent  to  make 
this  further  contribution  and  to  lay  a  further  obligation  upon 
the  British  taxpayer,  the  scheme  will  be  accepted  grudg- 
ingly ;  and  you  may  be  sure  that  before  two  or  three  years 
have  passed  away  there  will  be  an  attempt  to  get  it  revised 
or  altered  ;  and  if  that  attempt  is  persistent,  we  know  what 
persistency  does  in  a  matter  of  this  kind.  Now  we  are  told 
by  the  advocates  of  this  proposal  that  we  can  enforce  the 
bargain,  the  statutory  provisions,  by  force.  I  think  there 
may  be  difficulties  in  the  employment  of  force.  At  any  rate, 
it  is  a  contingency  which  we  do  not  like  to  have  to  contemplate 
when  we  are  making  what  we  are  told  the  Government  hope 
will  be  a  final  settlement.  I  confess.  Sir,  that  for  my  part, 
rather  than  face  any  agitation  which  I  foresee  would  be  the 
certain  result  of  a  proposal  of  this  kind  in  the  form  presented  to 
us,  rather  than  face  the  irritation  between  the  two  countries,  the 
panics  which  from  time  to  time  would  prevail,  and  which  would 
inevitably  have  the  tendency  enormously  to  increase  our 
Army  and  Navy  establishments — rather  than  face  the  dis- 
traction of  aU  domestic  legislation,  which  will  be  consequent 
upon  a  foreign  policy,  complicated  as  it  will  be  by  the  existence 
of  Ireland  in  its  new  and  ^was*-independent  situation — I 
would  vote  for  separation  pure  and  simple.  I  would  wipe  off 
the  obligations  which  exist  between  England  and  Ireland  as 
a  bad  debt ;  I  would  prefer  that  Ireland  should  go  free  alto- 
gether from  any  claim  on  the  part  of  this  country,  provided 
also  that  we  might  be  free  from  the  enormous  responsibility 
which  I  believe  a  sham  Union  would  certainly  entail.     I  think 


CHAMBERLAIN  349 

the  scheme  will  come  to  that  in  the  end,  and  I  would  rather 
face  it  at  once.  Before  I  sit  down  I  should  like  to  try  to 
answer  the  question  which  was  put  by  the  Prime  Minister, 
and  put  very  forcibly — "  What  alternative  have  you  got  ?  " 
I  believe  this  question  to  be  so  vital  and  critical  that  I  think 
men  are  bound,  however  little  authority  they  may  have  in 
such  a  matter,  still  to  do  their  best  to  promote  a  solution  of 
it.  Every  man  is  bound  to  bring  his  separate  contribution. 
Although  I  may  say  to  the  Prime  Minister,  using  his  own  lan- 
guage, that  it  is  not  for  anyone  who  is  not  a  responsible  Minister 
to  prepare  or  to  propose  a  plan  which  only  a  responsible  Govern- 
ment has  the  information  or  the  authority  properly  to  pre- 
pare, yet  I  will  not  take  refuge  behind  that  precedent.  I 
might  say  that  it  certainly  would  be  a  most  strange  doctrine 
that  one  should  be  forbidden  to  refuse  a  prescription  that  one 
thinks  to  be  dangerous  because  one  has  not  in  his  pocket  a 
patent  remedy  which  one  believes  to  be  a  perfect  cure.  I 
should  think  that  it  would  be  still  stranger  that  the  physician 
should  be  called  upon  to  commit  suicide  if  he  could  not  provide 
an  absolute  remedy  for  the  disease  of  his  patient.  My  right 
honourable  friend  appears  to  be  under  the  impression  that  the 
only  remedy  which  the  opponents  of  this  scheme  would  pro- 
pose is  that  of  coercion  carried  out  in  a  manner  and  to  an 
extent  never  hitherto  contemplated.  Well,  at  all  events, 
that  is  not  my  alternative,  I  do  not  believe  it  is  the  only 
alternative.  But  before  I  come  to  that  I  think  it  is  only  fair 
that  I  should  ask  the  advocates  of  this  scheme — "  How  do 
you  propose  to  carry  out  this  scheme  without  coercion,  and 
how,  if  it  be  adopted,  do  you  propose  to  maintain  its  pro- 
visions without  force  ?  "  Sir,  it  is  the  difficulty,  one  of  the 
great  difficulties  of  this  problem,  that  Ireland  is  not  a  homo- 
geneous community — that  it  consists  of  two  nations — ("  No, 
no  !  ") — that  it  is  a  nation  which  comprises  two  races  and  two 
religions.  ("  No,  no  !  ")  At  least  honourable  members  will 
not  deny  that.  And  whatever  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Ireland 
may  think  of  this  matter,  it  is  certain  that  the  Protestants 
will  believe,  rightly  or  wrongly,  that  it  is  injurious  to  them, 
and  that  they  will  resist  it.  (Cries  of  "  No,  no  !  ")  I  am  not 
pledging  my  opinion  to  the  statements  that  have  been  made 
that  they  will  resist  by  force.  I  know  nothing  about  that. 
But  I  say  that  their  opposition  is  to  be  reckoned  with  and 


350  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

counted  upon,  and  that  it  ought  not  to  be  ignored  by  this 
House.  I  have  not  a  word  to  say  against  the  Roman  Catholic 
population  of  Ireland  ;  but  I  certainly  might  say  a  good  deal 
in  favour  of  the  Protestant  population.  In  Ulster  they  are 
prosperous  and  industrious  and  enterprising,  and  in  Belfast 
they  have  rivalled  the  peaceful  activity  of  Glasgow,  of  Man- 
chester, and  of  Birmingham.  Throughout  the  Southern  Pro- 
vinces you  find  the  Protestants  scattered  here  and  there  in 
isolated  groups  and  little  congregations,  and  wherever  they  exist 
they  are  the  nucleus  of  industry  and  enterprise,  and  the  rallying 
point  and  centre  for  all  the  loyal  population.  If  you  are  going 
to  carry  this  scheme  in  the  face  of  the  opposition  of  one- 
fifth  of  the  population  of  Ireland — I  believe  the  proportion 
is  even  greater  ;  and  if,  unhappily,  they  should  feel  their  inter- 
ests so  much  compromised  that  they  resist  your  decision,  how 
are  you  to  enforce  it  ?  Are  you  going  to  apply  coercion  to  the 
loyal  and  law-abiding  population  while  you  taunt  us,  with  a 
desire  and  intention,  which  do  not  in  fact  exist,  to  apply  it  to 
those  who  have  not  always  been  loyal  or  law-abiding  ?  I 
go  further,  and  I  ask  how  are  you  going  to  enforce  the  pro- 
visions of  your  statutory  Parliament,  with  the  conditions  and 
the  limitations  you  have  imposed  ?  It  is  perfectly  certain 
that  they  will  be  objected  to  and  be  the  subject  of  agitation. 
You  wiU  have  Resolutions  of  this  Irish  Parliament  protesting 
against  them,  and  in  some  times  of  difficulty  and  danger  you 
may  have  these  Resolutions  supported  by  threats.  What  are 
you  going  to  do  ?  You  must  admit  that  force  is  at  the  bottom 
of  your  proposition,  and  when  you  come  to  the  foundation 
there  is  still  coercion,  unless,  indeed,  you  mean  to  tell  us  you 
wiU  surrender  everything  rather  than  use  force  ;  in  which  case 
why  not  surrender  everything  at  once  ?  The  peculiarity  of 
your  coercion  is  that  you  postpone  it  until  it  may  be  difficult, 
or  even  impossible,  of  application.  I  will,  however,  give  a 
more  practical  answer  to  the  question  of  the  Prime  Minister 
than  any  tu  quoque,  however  effective  it  might  be.  I  do  not 
believe  that  coercion  is  the  only  or  the  necessary  alternative. 
I  say  that  after  the  facts  which  were  stated  by  the  Leaders 
of  the  late  Government,  and  which  were  repeated  and  con- 
firmed last  night  by  the  Prime  Minister  as  to  the  present 
state  of  affairs  in  Ireland,  there  is,  at  all  events,  no  case  for 
coercion  at  present.    The  number  of  outrages  is  comparatively 


CHAMBERLAIN  351 

small ;  there  is  no  great  social  disorder ;  there  is  a 
certain  amount  of  intimidation,  no  doubt ;  but  there  is  no 
case  for  coercion.  The  influence  of  the  honourable  member 
for  Cork,  of  his  friends,  and  of  the  National  League,  has 
been  sufl&cient  to  prevent  people  from  doing  anything  in  the 
nature  of  extended  outrage.  I  believe  that  that  influence, 
which  has  been  so  effective,  will  be  continued  ;  but  I  do  not 
rely  on  that  alone.  What  is  the  cause  that  makes  a  recrudes- 
cence of  crime  possible  in  Ireland  ?  It  is  connected  with  the 
agrarian  situation.  There  lies  the  danger.  If  any  discontent 
should  be  felt  in  consequence  of  a  refusal  to  grant  the  demands 
of  the  Irish  people,  that  discontent  may  take  the  form  of 
refusal  to  pay  rent,  and  then  if  rent  were  sought  to  be  recovered 
by  the  ordinary  legal  processes,  outrage,  violence,  and  crime 
would  undoubtedly  follow.  But  if  we  could  put  this  cause 
out  of  the  way,  is  there  any  reason  to  anticipate  that  there 
would  be  any  such  crime  as  would  justify  or  necessitate  any 
resort  to  repressive  measures  ?  My  first  answer  to  the  Prime 
Minister,  then,  is  this — I  would  put  this  cause  out  of  the  way 
for  a  time  ;  I  would  try  to  continue  the  truce — it  might  almost 
be  called  the  truce  of  God — happily  existent  in  Ireland  now ; 
I  would  bring  in  a  Bill  to  stay  all  evictions  for  a  period  of  six 
months,  leaving  any  arrears  to  be  settled  in  connection  with 
the  final  settlement ;  and  as  this  would  be  done  in  the  interests 
of  the  United  Kingdom,  I  would  throw  upon  the  Government 
of  the  United  Kingdom  the  duty  of  lending  to  those  landlords 
who  might  have  any  need  of  it  such  a  proportion  of  their  rents 
as  would  save  them  from  necessity  and  privation.  I  would 
takj  from  the  landlords  for  a  great  Imperial  purpose  their 
present  legal  right  of  process  for  the  recovery  of  rents,  which 
might  possibly  amount  to  £4,000,000  sterling  ;  and  I  would 
advance,  if  necessary,  on  the  security  of  the  land,  a  specified 
proportion  of  those  rents  until  the  whole  matter  should  have 
been  settled.  I  would  do  that  without  hesitation,  as  the  risk 
of  such  a  transaction  would  be  infinitesimal  as  compared  with 
the  risks  of  which  we  shall  hear  something  later  on.  I  would 
hope  by  these  means,  by  putting  a  stop  to  the  procedure 
which  has  been  a  prime  cause  of  crime  and  outrage  in  Ireland — 
I  would  hope  that  we  should  get  a  further  interval  of  six 
months,  which  could  be  used  for  finding  a  settlement  of  this 
question.     I  admit  that  it  cannot  remain  altogether  unsettled. 


352  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

I  would  carry  on  the  inquiry  which  has  been  begun  by  the  Prime 
Minister  and  the  Government ;  but  I  would  no  longer  have  it 
carried  on  by  a  single  individual,  however  colossal  his  intelligence 
may  be.  I  would  not  have  it  carried  on  by  a  single  party, 
however  important,  however  influential  it  may  be  in  this 
House — I  would  strive  to  carry  it  on  with  the  assent  and  co- 
operation of  all  parties  in  the  House.  I  would  have  it  carried 
on  by  a  Committee  or  Commission  which  would  represent  all 
sections  of  this  House — both  parties  of  Englishmen  and 
Scotchmen,  and  both  parties  of  Irishmen  also.  But  upon 
what  lines  would  I  seek  such  a  settlement  ?  I  hope  the 
House  does  not  think  that  I  am  presuming.  I  feel  there  is 
some  presumption  in  offering  an  opinion  ;  but  I  do  it  only  in 
answer  to  the  demands — the  request — which  was  made  by 
the  Prime  Minister.  In  what  direction,  then,  do  I  think  the 
solution  is  to  be  found  ?  It  has  been  assumed  in  some  quarters 
that  I  am  pedantically  devoted  to  some  plan  of  National 
Councils,  of  which  a  good  deal  was  heard  some  six  months 
ago.  That  is  an  entire  mistake.  My  right  honourable 
friend  will  bear  me  out  when  I  say  that  I  did  not  think 
it  worth  while,  in  the  face  of  the  much  greater,  much 
more  complete,  much  more  important  proposal  which  he 
made  even  to  offer  one  word  in  favour  of  National  Councils. 
The  notion  of  National  Councils  was  started  to  meet 
a  different  state  of  things  and  a  different  problem.  It 
was  started  in  connection  with  a  scheme  for  a  thorough 
Municipal  Government  in  Ireland,  and  in  connection  with 
that  I  think  it  was  a  very  good  notion.  But  it  has,  at 
the  present  moment,  one  fatal  defect — if  honourable  members 
opposite  were  at  any  time  disposed  to  give  it  their  considera- 
tion they  are  no  longer  willing  to  do  so  ;  they  reject  it ;  and, 
under  these  circumstances.  Heaven  forfend  that  any  English 
party  or  statesman  should  attempt  to  impose  that  benefit 
upon  them.  The  question  now  is  different.  At  the  time 
when  I  myself  thought  there  was  something  in  the  idea  of  a 
Municipal  Council  as  affording  a  vent  to  a  great  deal  of  poli- 
tical activity  in  Ireland,  my  proposals  were  considered  too 
extreme  by  some  of  my  colleagues  who  have  now  been  successful 
in  making  them  too  moderate.  Those  National  Councils  I, 
for  one,  am  not  hkely  to  put  forward  again.  I  no  longer  regard 
that  scheme  as  a  solution  ;    and  I  confess — if  I  may  venture 


CHAMBERLAIN  353 

with  great  respect  to  say  so — that  I  think,  after  the  speech  of 
my  right  honourable  friend,  after  the  fact  that  a  most  important 
proportion  of  one  of  the  great  parties  in  the  State,  has  been 
willing,  at  all  events,  to  entertain  the  proposal  of  the  right 
honourable  gentleman,  it  is  only  a  very  large  proposal  which 
can  at  any  future  time  be  accepted  as  a  solution  of  this  vast 
question.     I  should  look  for  the  solution  in  the  direction  of 
the  principle  of  federation.     My  right  honourable  friend  has 
rather  looked  for  his  model  to  the  relations  between  this 
country  and  her  self-governing  and  practically  independent 
colonies.     I  think  that  that  is  of  doubtful  expediency.     The 
present  connection  between  our  colonies  and  ourselves  is  no 
doubt  very  strong,  owing  to  the  affection  which  exists  between 
members  of  the  same  nation.     But  it  is  a  sentimental  tie, 
and  a  sentimental  tie  only.     It  is  rather  curious  that  my  right 
honourable  friend  should  have  looked  in  this  direction  just 
at  the  moment  when  between  the  colonies  and  this  country 
there  is  a  general  desire  to  draw  tighter  the  bonds  which  unite 
us  and  to  bring  the  whole  Empire  into  one  federation.     I  can 
hardly  bring  myself  to  believe  that  the  honourable  member 
for  Cork  looks  with  entire  satisfaction  upon  a  proposal  which 
will  substitute  such  a  connection  as  that  which  exists  between 
Canada   and   this   country — a   connection,   remember,   which 
might  be  broken  to-morrow  if  there  were  the  slightest  desire  on 
the  part  of  Canada  to  terminate  it ;  because  no  one  would  think 
of  employing  force  in  order  to  tie  any  reluctant  self-governing 
colony  in  continued  bonds  to  this  country — I  think  the  honour- 
able member  for  Cork  would  hardly  like  to  see  a  tie  of  that 
kind  substituted  for  that  which  at  present  exists.     At  all 
events,  if  he  would,  he  would  differ  from  many  distinguished 
Irishmen  who  have  preceded  him.     I  will  not  quote  some  of 
the  great  orators  of  a  past  generation  ;   but  I  will  quote  Mr, 
Butt,  who,  speaking  ten  years  ago  in  this  House,  said — 

He,  for  one,  was  not  willing  to  give  up  his  share  in  the  power  and 
government  of  that  Empire,  and  really  since  the  Union  he  did  not  see 
how  it  was  possible  to  give  it  up.  Since  the  Union  the  wars  which  had 
brought  Possessions  to  England  had  been  carried  on  by  the  spending 
of  Irish  treasure  and  the  shedding  of  Irish  blood.  India  had  been  won 
by  the  British  Empire  in  the  same  way,  and  Ireland  had  acquired  with 
England  partnership  rights  which  it  would  be  impossible  to  distribute, 
and  of  which  Ireland  could  only  have  her  share  by  continuing  to  be 
represented  in  that  House. — (3  Hansard  [230],  740.) 

23— (SI7I) 


354  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

It  may  be  that  Mr.  Butt's  views  are  rather  antiquated  at 
this  time  ;  but  I  would  refer  to  an  opinion  of  a  distinguished 
member  of  the  party  opposite — I  mean  the  honourable  member 
for  Sligo  (Mr.  Sexton) — who,  speaking  at  Dublin  the  other  day, 
said — 

If  we  do  not  retain  a  voice  in  Imperial  affairs,  and  keep  part  and  parcel 
of  the  Imperial  Parliament,  the  country  will  be  degraded  to  the  position 
of  a  province. 

Well,  that  is  what  Irish  members  are  asked  to  agree  to  under 
the  scheme  of  my  right  honourable  friend.  It  appears  to  me 
that  the  advantage  of  a  system  of  federation  is  that  Ireland 
might  under  it  really  remain  an  integral  portion  of  the  Empire. 
The  action  of  such  a  scheme  is  centripetal  and  not  centrifugal, 
and  it  is  in  the  direction  of  federation  that  Democratic  move- 
ment has  made  most  advances  in  the  present  century.  My 
right  honourable  friend  has  referred  to  foreign  precedents  ; 
but  surely  they  are  all  against  him.  He  did  not  refer  to 
United  Italy.  In  Italy,  different  nations,  different  states, 
which  have  had  independent  existences  for  centuries,  have  been 
welded  together.  Even  where  federation  has  been  adopted 
it  has  always  been  in  the  case  of  federating  States  which  were 
previously  separate.  It  has  been  intended  to  bring  nations 
together,  to  lessen  the  causes  of  difference,  and  to  unite  them 
more  closely  in  a  common  union.  Take  the  case  of  Germany, 
for  instance.  Germany  has  been  united  upon  a  system  of 
federation  which  has  brought  together  nations  long  separated. 
Take  the  great  case — the  greatest  case  of  all — of  the  United 
States  of  America.  Ah,  Sir,  there  you  have  the  greatest 
Democracy  the  world  has  ever  seen,  and  a  Democracy  which 
has  known  how  to  fight  in  order  to  maintain  its  union.  It 
has  fought  for,  and  triumphantly  maintained,  the  Imperial 
Union  of  the  United  States  ;  but  it  has  known,  also,  how  to 
respect  all  local  differences.  Yes,  Sir,  I  cannot  but  remember 
that  in  the  time  of  its  greatest  crisis,  when  it  was  in  the  most 
terrible  moment  of  its  fate,  my  right  honourable  friend 
counselled  the  disintegration  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Gladstone  :  I  did  not  counsel  it. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  My  right  honourable  friend  says  he 
did  not  counsel  it ;  but  he  gave  the  weight  of  his  great 
name  to  the  statement  that  the  Northern  and  Southern  States 
had  become  separate  nations.     Well,  Sir,  no  one  doubted  at  that 


CHAMBERLAIN  355 

time  the  sincerity  of  my  right  honourable  friend,  or  the  purity  of 
his  motives.  Nobody  doubts  them  now  ;  but  everybody  will 
admit — I  dare  say  my  right  honourable  friend  himself  would 
admit — that  in  that  view  of  the  situation  in  the  United  States 
he  made  a  mistake. 

Mr.  Gladstone  :  Hear,  hear  ! 

Mr.  Chamberlain  :  Are  you  certain  he  is  not  making  a 
mistake  again  ?  Well,  Sir,  I  say  that  in  my  view  the  solu- 
tion of  this  question  should  be  sought  in  some  form  of  federa- 
tion, which  would  really  maintain  the  Imperial  unity,  and 
which  would,  at  the  same  time,  conciliate  the  desire  for  a 
national  local  government  which  is  felt  so  strongly  by  the 
constituents  of  honourable  members  opposite.  I  do  not  say 
that  we  should  imitate  the  great  models  to  which  I  have 
referred.  Our  Constitution  and  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
are  different.  I  say  that  I  believe  that  it  is  on  this  line,  and 
not  on  the  line  of  our  relations  with  our  self-governing  colonies, 
that  it  is  possible  to  seek  for  and  find  a  solution  of  the  difficulty. 
I  have  now  only  to  thank  the  House  for  the  indulgence  which 
it  has  given  to  me.  I  regret  that  my  explanation  has  been 
necessarily  to  some  extent  incomplete.  I  have,  however, 
said  sufficient  to  put  the  House  in  possession  of  the  main 
reasons  why  I  have  ceased  to  be  a  minister  of  the  Crown.  Sir, 
there  are  some  persons,  servile  partisans,  who  disgrace  public 
life,  who  say  that  I  have  been  guilty  of  treachery  because 
I  have  resigned  an  office  which  I  cordd  no  longer  hold  with 
honour.  What  would  these  men  have  been  entitled  to  say 
of  me  if,  holding  the  opinions  that  I  do,  which  I  expressed  before 
joining  the  Government,  and  which  I  have  expressed  to-day, 
I  had  remained  on  that  bench  pretending  to  serve  my  country 
with  a  lie  upon  my  lips  ?  I  do  not  assume — Heaven  knows 
I  do  not  pretend — to  dogmatise  on  a  question  of  this  kind. 
I  do  not  say  that  I  am  right  in  the  conclusion  at  which  I  have 
arrived  ;  I  do  not  presume  to  condemn  those  who  honestly 
differ  from  me  ;  but  of  one  thing  I  am  certain — that  I  should 
have  been  guilty  of  an  incredible  shame  and  baseness  if  I  had 
clung  to  place  and  office  in  support  of  a  policy  which  in  my 
heart  I  believe  to  be  injurious  to  the  best  interests  of  Ireland 
and  of  Great  Britain. 


LORD   MORLEY 

Speech  in  the  Town  Hall  at  Rochdale,  after  the  statue  of  John 
Bright  had  been  unveiled,  on  the  24th  of  October,  1891 

Mr.  Morley,  who  was  received  with  loud  cheers,  said  : — 
Mr.  Chairman,  ladies,  and  gentlemen, — As  Mr.  Brierley  in  his 
very  excellent  remarks  observed,  the  occasion  that  has  brought 
us  together  is  one  that  has  united  the  sympathy,  the  active 
interest,  and  the  practical  support  of  men  and  women  of  all 
political  opinions  and  all  religious  opinions,  and,  as  the  Chair- 
man observed,  the  interest  and  support  of  all  classes,  from  the 
wealthy  down  to  the  humblest  and  the  most  lowly.  (Cheers.) 
I  may  be  forgiven  for  adding  that  the  fact  that  the  invitation 
to  take  a  prominent  part  in  this  ceremony  was  conveyed  to 
me,  whose  misfortune  it  was  not  to  be  able  to  take  sides  with 
Mr.  Bright  in  the  great  controversy  of  his  closing  days,  is  an 
additional  illustration  that  this  is  not  an  occasion  of  a  partial, 
a  narrow,  or  an  exclusive  description,  but  is  one  that  touches 
the  interests  and  sympathies  of  Englishmen  of  all  kinds,  equally 
and  alike,     (Cheers.) 

We  have  recalled  the  outward  semblance  and  the  bodily 
presence  of  this  illustrious  man,  and  I  think  I  am  only  saying 
what  you  would  desire  me  to  say,  when  I  express  my  opinion, 
which  I  believe  is  yours  too,  that  the  sculptor  has  succeeded 
with  admirable  skill  in  reproducing  the  comeliness  of  mien, 
the  dignity,  the  pose,  the  gesture,  which  we  all  knew  and 
remember  so  well.  (Cheers.)  I  am  strongly  inchned  to  think 
that  if  we  all  did  what  was  the  best  thing  for  us,  we  should  now, 
after  having  performed  this  ceremony,  go  to  our  own  homes 
and  read  for  ourselves  one  of  those  famous  speeches  of  Mr. 
Bright,  which  from  their  language,  their  purpose,  and  their 
effect  on  men's  minds,  are  his  titles  to  lasting  honour.  How- 
ever, in  scenes  like  this  it  is  expected  that  we  should  not  part 
in  silence,  so,  instead  of  doing  what  is  best  for  us,  I  shall  ask 
you  to  listen  for  a  short  time  to  a  few  observations  as  to  which 
I  cannot  for  a  moment  flatter  myself  that  they  possess  any 
originality. 

We  stand  at  a  distance  of  eighty  years  from  the  date  of 

356 


MORLEY  357 

Mr.  Bright's  birth,  and  of  fifty  years  from  his  entry  into 
Parliamentary  hfe.  It  would  be  idle  for  me  to  attempt  to  tell 
over  again,  in  the  midst  of  those  among  whom  he  lived,  the 
story  of  his  days.  You  know  his  upbringing  in  that  religious 
body  among  the  prime  articles  of  whose  creed  is  hatred  of  war, 
abhorrence  of  slavery,  absence  of  formal  or  professional 
priesthood,  the  freedom  of  religion,  and  of  the  indwelling  light 
m  the  mind  and  conscience  of  men,  from  all  connection  with  the 
powers  of  the  earth.  You  know  how  he  was  surrounded  from 
his  youth  by  men  earning  their  bread  by  hard  toil  and  with 
honourable  industry.  He  had  no  marked  advantages  of  literary 
education,  but  he  was  blessed  with  an  inborn  readiness  to 
take  an  active  and  an  understanding  concern  in  objects  of  great 
public  interest.  When  he  was  some  four-and-twenty  years 
old,  his  views  of  national  policy  were  thrown  into  definite  shape 
by  reading  a  remarkable  pamphlet  by  a  man  whom  also,  though 
he  was  not  your  townsman,  you  know  well  in  Rochdale,  I  mean 
Cobden.  (Cheers.)  Mr.  Bright  said  himself  of  this  pamphlet 
of  Cobden's — it  was  called  England,  Ireland,  and  America — 
that  it  excelled  in  sagacity,  in  foresight,  and  in  practical 
wisdom  any  political  essay  that  had  ever  been  published  in 
our  tongue.  And  I  beheve  myself  that  those  who  are  most 
competent  to  judge,  and  those  who  have  read  this  pamphlet, 
and  have  measured  its  place  in  political  history,  will  be  of  the 
mind  that  Mr.  Bright  did  not  at  all  in  these  words  exaggerate  its 
value. 

Mr.  Bright  looked  round,  and  he  perceived  that  Cobden's 
reading  of  what  he  saw  about  him  was  elevated,  was  practical, 
was  wise,  and  fitted  in  with  the  whole  spirit  of  his  own  early 
teaching  and  his  own  early  surroundings.  They  became 
comrades  and  fellow-workers,  bound  to  one  another  by  a  true 
and  faithful  friendship,  which  lasted  as  long  as  their  common 
lives,  and  stands  as  one  of  the  purest,  closest,  and  most 
magnanimous  friendships  in  our  poUtical  history. 

Mr.  Bright  had  not  been  long  engaged  in  his  first  great 
public  task,  which,  as  you  all  know,  was  the  repeal  of  the  taxes 
on  food,  before  it  was  found  that  he  possessed  the  natural 
gifts  of  a  great  orator  ;  that  he  had  the  power  by  his  speeches 
to  excite,  to  interest,  to  convince,  to  exalt.  In  a  country 
governed  by  Parliament,  and  by  public  meetings,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  power  of  a  great  speaker  must  be  a  power  of  almost 


358  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

the  first  importance,  and  that  circumstance  has  led  many  to 
satirise  the  British  system  as  government  by  talk.  I  am  not 
now  going  to  discuss  that  question,  though  it  is  one  full  of 
interest.  I  will  only  remark — and  it  is  not  irrelevant  on  an 
occasion  like  this — that  it  has  been  pointed  out,  that  if  you  look 
at  English  political  history  from  the  days  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole 
down  to  the  days  of  Lord  Palmerston,  with  three  or  four  ex- 
ceptions, you  will  find  that  those  who  have  taken  the  foremost 
place  in  the  English  politics  of  their  times  have  not  been 
orators  of  the  first  class.  One  great  exception  is  well  known 
to  all  of  us.  But  even  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Gladstone — (cheers) 
— the  exception  best  known  to  us,  it  will  not  be  forgotten  that 
he  first  established  his  great  ascendancy  in  ParUament  and  in 
the  country  by  his  practical  achievements  in  the  sphere  of  pubhc 
business,  and  by  his  unsurpassed  mastery  over  the  financial 
system  of  his  country. 

Therefore  we  should  not  have  been  here  to-day,  I  venture  to 
say,  if  Mr.  Bright  had  been  no  more  than  a  great  master  of 
tropes  and  figures,  images,  perorations,  and  all  the  rest  of 
rhetorical  paraphernaHa.  He  once  himself  said  caustically 
in  the  House  of  Commons  of  some  one  that  he  would  be  a  very 
good  speaker  if  you  did  not  listen  to  what  he  said.  (Laughter.) 
In  the  same  vein,  Mr.  Bright  once  said,  as  to  thinkers  in  Par- 
liament, that  the  worst  of  great  thinkers  is  that  they  so  very 
often  think  wrong.  (Laughter.)  Well,  we  are  not  here  to-day 
merely  because  we  think  that  he  was  always  right ;  we  are  not 
here  because  he  made  speeches,  which  were  magnificent  apart 
from  their  contents.  No  ;  eloquence  is  more  than  words. 
Speech  is  not  eloquence.  Eloquence  is  character,  conviction, 
sincerity,  purpose,  service,  fitness — eloquence  is  the  moment, 
is  the  man.     (Cheers.) 

The  fashion  of  oratory  changes.  Lord  Derby,  in  his  admir- 
able speech  on  a  similar  occasion  to  this  a  fortnight  ago,  said 
something  about  Burke.  Certainly,  Burke's  two  speeches  on 
American  taxation  and  American  concihation  I  have  always 
regarded  as  the  most  masterly  manual  of  civil  wisdom  in  the 
English  language.  Still  I  think  if  those  speeches  were  made 
now  in  the  House  of  Commons  we  should  see  member  after 
member  slipping  away  into  the  noble  ease  of  the  library,  or 
the  more  ignoble  ease  of  the  smoking-room.  (Laughter.) 
I  should  say  that  the  foundation  of  Mr.  Bright's  oratory — 


MORLEY  359 

and  remember  this  is  not  merely  literary  examination,  but  in 
criticising  the  oratory,  we  are  criticising  the  character  of 'the 
man  whom  we  are  met  here  to-day  to  honour — I  should  say 
that  the  foundation  of  his  oratory  was,  first,  the  possession 
of  a  body  of  what  to  him  were  living  principles  ;  secondly, 
his  gift  of  thoroughly  mastering  the  facts  of  his  case,  with  his 
rare  power  and  skilful  use  of  and  firm  control  over  detail ; 
thirdly,  that  he  always  had,  in  every  speech  he  made,  a  definite 
and  practical  end  without  which  deliberative  eloquence  is 
nought,  and  even  worse  than  nought ;  fourthly,  he  constantly 
appealed  to  the  strong  parts  of  human  character,  and  to  the 
higher  aspects  of  national  destiny  ;  fifthly,  and  most  important, 
there  was  in  every  speech  he  made  a  moral  fervour,  beating 
like  a  pulse  under  the  array  of  spoken  words,  warming  political 
objects  into  moral  objects,  and  sending  a  current  of  moral 
ideas  like  a  Gulf  Stream,  enriching  political  discussion,  nourishing 
it,  and  making  it  alive.     (Cheers.) 

On  one  occasion.  Lord  Palmerston — to  whom  he  was  all  his 
life  in  active  and  direct  antagonism — spoke  of  him  as  "  the 
honourable  and  reverend  gentleman,"  and  scoffed  at  what  he 
said  as  things  for  the  pulpit.  Lord  Palmerston  did  not  know 
the  spirit  of  the  times  into  which  he  had  survived.  (Hear, 
hear.)  It  was  Mr.  Bright's  power  of  appeal  to  reverence,  to 
human  sympathy,  to  pity — ^it  was  these  things  that  gave 
him  his  almost  unrivalled  authority  over  those  great  audiences, 
so  well  known  now  to  all  of  us,  who  are  dimly  feeling  their  way 
through  the  intricacies  of  political  fact  and  the  long  bewilder- 
ment of  poUtical  controversy,  but  who  always  mean  to  follow 
what  is  right,  who  are  always  eager  to  stretch  out  a  hand  to  the 
downtrodden  and  helpless,  and  who,  even  in  their  hours  of 
delusion  and  of  false  enchantment,  are  always  ready  to  take  a 
high  and  generous  view,  and  always  to  repel  a  low  or  a  base  or 
an  ignoble  one.     (Cheers.) 

Though  he  belonged  to  the  persuasion  of  Non-resistance,  he 
had  plenty  of  that  sprit  of  contention  without  which  public 
life  is  hardly  possible  in  a  free  country.  Mr.  Bright  was  not 
famous  for  handling  his  opponents  tenderly,  and  I  suppose 
nobody  ever  less  implicitly  followed  the  apostolic  injunction 
to  "  suffer  fools  gladly."  (Laughter.)  Dr.  Johnson  said  that 
"  to  treat  your  opponent  in  argument  with  respect,  is  to 
give  him  an  advantage  to  which  he  is  not  fairly  entitled." 


360  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

Few  of  Mr.  Bright's  antagonists  ever  gained  that  unlawful 
advantage.  He  thought  that  old  Fuller  was  not  far  wrong 
when  he  said  that  he  should  suspect  that  a  man's  preaching 
had  little  salt  in  it  if  no  galled  horse  did  wince.     (Laughter.) 

Apart  from  the  direct  objects  of  Mr.  Bright's  career  there 
were  two  services  which  he  rendered  in  a  pre-eminent  degree, 
though  the  shallow  and  the  cynical  may  say,  if  they  please,  that 
they  are  no  better  than  dilettantism  and  sentimentalism.  The 
first  was  that  he  was  careful  of  the  dignity  and  simphcity  of  the 
Enghsh  tongue.  (Hear,  hear.)  I  remember  when  he  was  kind 
enough  to  perform  for  me  the  friendly  office  of  reading  through 
the  proof-sheets  of  a  book  which  it  was  my  fortune  to  write 
upon  Cobden — (cheers) — how  prompt  he  was  all  through  that 
task,  particularly  to  note  any  slipshod,  any  loose,  any  affected, 
any  too  familiar  expression.  His  literary  taste  on  all  these 
points  was  perfect.  Here,  as  in  so  much  else,  he  had  caught 
the  spirit  of  Milton,  who  said  that  next  to  the  man  who  advises 
his  countrymen  with  wise  and  intrepid  counsel  of  government, 
he  valued  most  the  man  who  liked  and  cared  for  the  purity 
of  his  mother-tongue — (cheers) — and  therefore  there  is  some- 
thing particularly  appropriate  in  the  circumstance  that,  as  I 
gather  from  the  Chairman,  it  is  intended  to  devote  some  portion 
of  the  fund  which  has  been  raised  to  the  foundation  of  a 
scholarship  for  literature  in  connection  with  Victoria 
University. 

The  second  service  was  this.  It  is  a  striking  thing,  and  I 
think  it  is  a  promising  and  a  fruitful  thing,  that  this  man, 
who  in  his  day  was  called  a  revolutionist  and  a  destroyer, 
should  have  been  the  first  and  strongest  to  appeal  to  historic 
precedents  and  to  the  great  forefathers  of  English  freedom 
two  centuries  ago.  A  political  leader  does  well  to  strive  to 
keep  our  EngHsh  democracy  historic,  and  to  make  them 
ready  magnanimously  to  praise  great  men,  and  our  fathers  that 
begat  us.  (Cheers.)  John  Bright  would  have  been  a  worthy 
comrade  for  John  Hampden,  John  Selden,  John  Pym.  He 
had  the  very  spirit  of  the  Puritan  leaders.  He  had  their 
brave  and  honest  heart,  their  sound  and  sedate  judgment, 
their  manly  hatred  of  oppression,  of  bad  laws,  of  all  government 
outside  laws.  Besides,  that  is  true  of  John  Bright  which  the 
historian  has  said  of  John  Pym,  that  he  had  the  civic  temper 
and  habit  of  looking  for  wisdom  in  the  result  of  common 


MORLEY  361 

debate,  rather  than  in  one  supereminent  mind.  It  was  this  that 
made  him  glory  in  the  House  of  Commons.  He  despised  the 
gladiatorial  triumphs  of  the  Parliamentary  arena,  and  scorned 
the  fleeting  laurels  of  its  contentions,  but  no  man  who  has  ever 
lived  has  more  deeply  and  profoundly  honoured  the  grand 
traditions  and  the  great  responsibilities  of  the  mother  of 
Parliaments.     (Cheers.) 

He  had  the  same  foundation  of  religion  as  had  the  Puritan 
leaders.  He  took,  as  they  did,  civil  duty  to  be  a  part  of  rehgion , 
though  happily  there  has  come  into  the  nineteenth  century  a 
wide  tolerance,  an  appreciation  of  spiritual  and  intellectual 
freedom,  which  was  hardly  possible  to  the  Puritan  leader  in 
the  seventeenth  century.  You  remember  a  beautiful  reflection 
in  one  of  Mr.  Bright's  speeches.  He  said  :  "  I  accept  the  belief 
in  a  grand  passage  which  I  once  met  with  in  the  writings  of  the 
illustrious  founder  of  the  colony  of  Pennsylvania,  who  says 
that  the  humble,  meek,  merciful,  just,  pious,  and  devout  souls 
are  everywhere  of  one  religion,  and  when  death  has  taken 
off  the  mask  they  will  know  one  another,  though  the  diverse 
liveries  they  wear  here  make  them  strangers."  (Cheers.) 
Yes,  it  is  good  to  think  that  this  wise  and  strong  tolerance 
in  these  supreme  concerns  springs  in  his  case,  as  I  hope  it 
springs  in  the  whole  temper  of  this  generation,  not  from  slack- 
ness, not  from  indifference,  but  from  a  better  understanding  of 
one  another.     (Hear,  hear.) 

The  most  signal  practical  successes  of  Mr.  Bright  were 
undoubtedly  Free  Trade  and  the  enlargement  of  the  Parliament- 
ary franchise.  These  were  his  two  most  signal  practical 
successes.  The  grandest  exhibition  of  his  moral  courage,  and 
one  of  the  very  grandest  in  our  history,  was  the  stem  and 
unquailing  front  with  which  he  resisted  the  flood  of  popular 
prejudice  and  passion  raging  at  the  time  of  the  Crimean  war — 
(cheers) — raging  in  favour  of  a  conflict  which  Mr.  Bright 
regarded  not  only  as  a  terrible  crime  before  high  heaven,  but 
as  destructive  of  the  best  and  the  truest  interests  of  the  country. 
(Cheers.)  Then,  the  most  striking  passage  of  his  rhetorical 
performances,  taken  singly  and  as  a  whole,  I  dare  say  many 
will  think  was  the  speech  he  made  in  Birmingham  in  the  year 
1858 — a  well-known  and  famous  speech.  But  I  confess  my 
own  view  that  it  was  during  the  Civil  War  in  America  that  we 
saw  all  Mr.  Bright's  highest  and  greatest  gifts  at  their  best. 


362  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

The  force  of  his  vision  and  of  his  hopes  for  the  destiny  of  man- 
kind was  never  more  keen,  the  masculine  strength  of  his  argu- 
ment never  was  so  massive  and  so  exalted,  the  power  of  his 
language  never  so  commanding  and  so  pathetic,  as  during  that 
mighty  struggle,  when,  in  his  own  sublime  words,  "  a  continent 
reeled  under  the  American  nation  during  four  years  of  agony, 
till  at  last,  after  the  smoke  of  the  battlefield  had  cleared 
away,  the  horrid  shape  of  slavery,  which  had  cast  its  shade  over 
the  whole  continent,  had  vanished  and  had  gone  for  ever." 
(Cheers.)  As  we  look  back,  as  we  survey  all  his  career,  as  we 
remember  the  enormous  importance  at  that  moment  of  the 
crisis  of  the  relations  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  of  America — looking  back  and  remembering  the  im- 
pression he  made  on  the  public  opinion  of  his  country,  we 
may  say  of  him  in  connection  with  it,  that  he  was  one  of  those 
who  have  turned  the  balance  of  the  greatest  events.     (Cheers.) 

Mr.  Bright  was  constantly  taunted  with  being  parochial. 
It  was  said  of  him  that  he  cared  for  no  country  but  his  own, 
and  then  he  was  usually  charged  in  the  very  same  breath  by 
the  very  same  people  with  being  a  cosmopoUtan  who  cared 
for  every  other  country  except  his  own.  As  if  anything  could 
be  less  parochial  than  Free  Trade  !  As  if  you  can  trace 
parochialism  in  the  contrast  that  he  drew  between  Rome — 
lone  mother  of  dead  empires — and  England — the  living  mother 
of  "  great  nations  on  the  American  and  Australian  Continents, 
who  promise  to  endow  the  world  with  all  her  knowledge  and  all 
her  civiHsation,  and  something  more  than  the  freedom  that  she 
herself  enjoys  "  !  What  was  there  parochial  in  his  splendid 
and  beneficent  vision  of  the  English-speaking  nations  all  bound 
together,  not  by  the  bars  and  framework  of  some  cast-iron 
political  machinery,  but  each  in  its  own  way  working  out  the 
common  principles  of  free  government  in  a  dehberate  and  well 
compacted  peace  with  one  another  ?  (Cheers.)  Far  more 
parochial  was  the  statesmanship  that  would  have  plunged 
us  into  war  for  some  sanguinary  scufHe  of  a  Don  Carlos  in  Spain, 
or  Don  Miguel  in  Portugal,  or  in  Savoy,  or  Schleswig-Holstein — 
there  was  the  true  parochialism,  and  not  in  Mr.  Bright.  (Cheers.) 

Many  fine  and  true  things  have  been  said  of  George  Washing- 
ton. I  always  think  one  of  the  finest  and  one  of  the  truest 
was  this,  that  "  Washington  changed  mankind's  ideas  of 
political  greatness."     And  we  may  say  of  Mr.  Bright  that  he 


MORLEY  363 

changed  our  ideas  of  national  greatness.  (Cheers.)  You 
remember  these  beautiful  words  of  his  :  "  Palaces,  baronial 
castles,  great  halls,  stately  mansions — these  do  not  make  a 
nation.  The  nation  in  every  country  dwells  in  the  cottage  ; 
and  unless  the  light  of  your  Constitution  can  shine  there,  unless 
the  beauty  of  your  legislation,  and  the  excellence  of  your 
statesmanship  are  impressed  there  on  the  feelings  and  conditions 
of  the  people,  rely  upon  it  you  have  yet  to  learn  the  duties  of 
government."  (Cheers.)  This  is  a  consideration  which  sounds 
very  obvious  and  very  simple,  and  yet  which  rulers  and  Par- 
liaments and  Cabinets  are  all  very  liable  to  forget,  and  this 
was  the  consideration  which  lay  at  the  root  of  all  his  public 
endeavour  for  Free  Trade,  for  extended  suffrage,  for  wise  and 
just  diplomacy,  for  peace.  Mr.  Bright  very  well  knew  that  the 
duty  of  statesmen  is  +o  see  that  your  country  shall  be  strong.  He 
did  not  shrink  even  from  the  approval  of  war,  when  the  existence 
of  the  majestic  fabric  of  American  union  was  at  stake.  He 
knew  that  the  business  of  the  statesman  is  to  keep  his  country 
strong,  but  he  insisted  the  strength  of  a  country  must  be 
sought  in  what  I  may  call  the  moral  reason  of  things.  He 
fought  for  Free  Trade,  for  the  admission  of  new  classes  to  the 
suffrage,  for  public  economy,  for  wise  and  just  diplomacy 
affecting  the  rights  of  other  nations,  because  he  believed  all 
these  things  were  the  key  to  England's  holding  her  place  as  a 
powerful  and  beneficent  nation  among  the  great  states  of  the 
world. 

I  am  not  going  to  take  you,  even  for  a  moment,  over  the 
ground  of  the  Free  Trade  controversy,  nor,  in  fact,  over  any 
of  the  disputed  political  points  which  arose  in  the  course  of  his 
career.  The  distinguished  man  who  has  for  the  last  five  years 
presided  over  the  Government  of  this  country,  said  the  other 
day  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Manchester  School  in  their  old 
intensity  were  now  repudiated  and  disavowed.  This  may  be 
partially  true  of  their  "  old  intensity,"  but  if  we  look  round,  we 
do  not  see  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Manchester  School,  in  all 
that  was  sound  in  them,  have  in  any  degree  lost  their  hold 
upon  the  policy  of  this  country.  (Cheers.)  All  responsible 
men,  for  instance,  admit  that  given  a  country  like  ours,  with  a 
gigantic  manufacturing  plant,  with  a  huge  manufacturing 
population,  being  mainly  dependent  upon  other  countries  for 
its  food  and  for   its  raw  material — such  a  country  can  have 


364  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

but  one  policy,  and  that  policy,  if  it  be  conducted  by  wise 
men,  must  and  can  only  be  a  policy  of  peace,  of  non-interven- 
tion, and  of  Free  Trade.  (Cheers.)  When  Mr.  Bright  entered 
Parliamentary  hfe  this  was  nothing  short  of  industrial  hfe  or 
death  to  the  country.  I  know  it  is  said  that  Free  Trade  was 
carried  by  a  parcel  of  Lancashire  manufacturers,  who  had  a 
sharp  eye  to  the  main  chance  and  were  looking  after  their  own 
pockets.  To  take  that  view  is  to  misunderstand  entirely  and 
absolutely  the  whole  body  of  principles  upon  which  Mr.  Bright 
and  Mr.  Cobden  uniformly  argued  their  case.  And  the  proposi- 
tions, I  venture  to  say,  which  these  two  men  estabhshed  in  the 
minds  of  the  country,  are  now  accepted,  and  finally  and  per- 
manently accepted  for  all  serious  purposes,  by  both  parties  in 
the  State  as  the  basis  of  the  economic  policy  of  this  country. 
(Cheers.) 

Mr.  Bright  would  have  been  the  last  man  to  claim  place 
either  as  a  great  originator  of  new  ideas  of  national  policy, 
like  Cobden,  or  as  a  great  practical  instrument  for  carrying 
out  the  policy  of  others,  like  Sir  Robert  Peel.  His  instinct 
probably  told  him  that  his  place  was  one  not  any  less  high — 
to  be  the  adviser  and  the  counsellor  of  his  countrymen.  It  is 
quite  true  that  he  did  not  always  avoid  Ministerial  responsibihty 
but  for  the  Parliamentary  arts  of  making  and  keeping 
majorities,  of  measuring  the  exact  ripeness  of  questions  for 
Parhamentary  treatment,  for  the  necessity  of  somehow  or 
other  carrying  on  the  Queen's  Government — all  of  this  inevit- 
able, but  rather  slippery,  ground,  Mr.  Bright  would  never 
tread.  But  it  was,  with  the  greatest  reluctance,  as  he  told  the 
world,  that  he  ever  consented  to  accept  office.  Mr.  Gladstone 
has  told  me  that  he  had  to  wrestle  with  him — I  think  from  nine 
o'clock  one  night  until  one  o'clock  in  the  morning — ^before  he 
could  induce  him  to  take  office  in  1868.  Mr.  Bright  felt  that 
his  mission  was  rather  that  of  a  counsellor,  standing  outside  of 
practice  and  administration.  At  the  same  time  he  was  no 
pedant,  he  was  no  irreconcilable,  he  was  always  willing  to  help 
when  he  saw  a  Minister  steering  the  ship  of  State  in  the  direction 
in  which  he  wished  it  to  go.  He  was  always  ready  to  make 
allowances  for  difficulties.  He  pressed  no  unreasonable 
exactions  upon  friends  in  office.  He  was  the  most  loyal  and 
helpful  of  colleagues,  endeavouring  to  make  things  easy  and 
not  difficult.     You  know  that  he  himself  preferred  the  simple 


MORLEY  365 

position  of  plain  citizenship  ;  and  the  answer  came  from  his 
heart  when  he  used  those  beautiful  words  of  the  Shunamite 
woman,  that  she  liked  best  to  dwell  among  her  own  people, 
(Cheers.) 

I  do  not  propose  to  attempt  to  survey  the  various  fields  in 
which  he  was  active  and  exercised  vast  influence.  You  know 
how  much  he  cared  for  India.  You  know  how  vigilantly  he 
watched  our  almost  ceaseless  frontier  wars,  and  how  strenu- 
ously he  protested  against  a  harsh  or  lawless  or  oppressive 
bearing  against  inferior  races.  Everybody  knows,  again, 
that  there  was  no  subject  which  engaged  his  most  anxious 
meditations  from  the  time  of  the  famine  of  1846-7  to  the  day  of 
his  death,  than  that  of  Ireland.  It  occupied  a  foremost  place 
in  his  thoughts,  and  inspired  many  of  his  most  admirable 
speeches.  In  1881,  in  a  speech  that  he  made  at  the  Mansion 
House  in  London,  talking  about  the  Irish  Land  Act,  which 
had  just  become  law,  he  used  some  remarkable  words — and  I 
hope  nobody  mil  suppose  I  am  going  for  a  moment  to  violate 
what  I  may  caU  the  sacred  spirit  of  this  occasion  by  introducing 
a  word  of  controversy.     His  words  were  these — 

I  have  said  that  there  are  fears — I  have  fears — ^that  after  the  state  of 
things  through  which  the  Irish  people  have  gone  in  so  many  successive 
periods,  it  is  not  perhaps  quite  certain  that  all  remedial  measures  are 
not  too  late.  I  will  not  express  a  strong  fear  that  such  is  the  case ; 
on  the  contrary,  I  will  express  a  strong  hope  that  such  is  not  the  case. 

Five  years  after  that,  some  of  his  old  colleagues  adopted  a  new 
policy,  based  on  the  belief  that,  with  respect  to  remedial 
measures  of  the  partial  and  limited  kind  of  which  Mr.  Bright 
was  speaking,  his  fears  and  not  his  hopes  had  come  true. 
I  remember  the  first  time  that  I  saw  Mr.  Bright  after  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Cabinet  of  1886.  As  he  shook  hands  with  me 
in  the  lobby  he  glanced  at  me  with  an  eye  of  rebuke,  and 
intimated  pretty  bluntly  with  how  little  favour  he  viewed  the 
course  on  which  we  had  embarked  Well,  gentlemen,  it  was 
not  for  me,  in  the  words  of  a  Greek  disciple  about  his  teacher, 
"  It  was  not  for  me  to  lay  hands  on  my  father  Parmenides." 
I  will  only  repeat  here  what  I  said  in  the  House  of  Commons 
on  the  day  of  his  death,  that  one  of  the  deepest  feelings  in  the 
minds  of  many  of  us  during  those  months  of  stress  and  conflict 
and  sharp  controversy,  was  a  feeling  of  regret  that  the  last 
days  of  so  noble   a  career  should  have  been  in  any  degree 


366  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

clouded  or  made  less  happy  by  division  from  the  comrades  and 
fellow-workers  of  a  lifetime.     (Cheers.) 

Here  I  will  leave  this  memorable  man.  I  have  already  told 
in  Rochdale  how,  one  evening  at  One  Ash,  he  mused  over  the 
contrast  between  the  enormous  space  that  a  public  man  fills 
in  the  eye  and  in  the  ear  of  his  generation  whilst  he  is  hving, 
with  the  silence  that  seems  to  fall  about  his  name  when  the 
last  page  of  the  book  of  his  career  has  been  closed.  We  may 
be  sure  of  this,  that  Mr.  Bright's  name  will  be  perpetuated 
in  material  less  perishable  than  marble  or  bronze.  (Hear, 
hear.)  It  is  quite  true  that  the  chill  of  time  congeals  the  glow- 
ing current  of  fervid  speech,  and  hardens  the  orator's  molten 
metal  into  dull  and  inanimate  shapes.  Yet  I  cannot  suppose 
but  that  many  a  page  of  Mr.  Bright's  is  so  classic  in  form,  so 
noble  in  thought,  so  apt  in  principle  and  application  to  great 
occasions  of  national  life,  that  they  will  live  to  be  a  lamp  for 
many  a  generation  of  EngUshmen  in  times  to  come.  (Cheers.) 
It  has  been  well  said  that  monuments,  anniversaries,  statues, 
are  schools  whose  lessons  sink  deep.  So  this  statue,  to  the 
minds  of  future  generations,  as  they  pass  it  in  going  to  and  fro 
about  the  affairs  of  their  daily  business,  will  recall  a  lofty 
example,  a  man  of  unshaken  firmness  and  constancy,  a  faithful, 
an  enhghtened,  an  unselfish  citizen,  and  a  great  and  a  famous 
pleader  for  the  best  causes  of  mankind.     (Loud  cheers.) 


LORD   ROSEBERY 

At  the  Free  Trade  Hall,  Manchester,  at  the  Centenary  of  the 
Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce,  November  1 ,  1897 

I  AM  deeply  grateful  to  you  for  the  cordiality  of  your  reception 
to-night.  It  is  at  any  time  an  honour  to  speak  in  the  Free 
Trade  Hall  to  a  great  audience  of  Manchester  citizens  such  as 
this  is.  But  on  this  occasion  I  deem  it  a  signal  though  rather 
an  embarrassing  distinction.  I  venture  to  think  that  there 
was  among  your  cheers  to-night  a  note  of  compassion  when 
you  received  me.  And  I  will  tell  you  why.  On  such  occa- 
sions as  these,  when  you  have  the  Free  Trade  Hall  crowded 
to  the  roof,  you  expect  from  some  eminent  pohtician  a  con- 
troversial speech,  spiced  with  epigram  and  possibly  not  removed 
from  personality,  which  shall  tickle  the  pohtical  palate  of  the 
audience  and  keep  it  in  a  state  of  agreeable  excitement.  But 
to-night  we  can  have  none  of  these  things.  This  is  one  of  those 
occasions  which  I  think  are  somewhat  too  rare  among  us  when 
great  audiences  meet  together,  composed  of  both,  or  perhaps 
I  ought  rather  to  say  of  all,  the  parties  in  the  State — (laughter) 
— from  which,  therefore,  everything  of  a  controversial  kind  is 
banished.  (Hear,  hear.)  It  is  all  very  well  to  say  "  hear, 
hear,"  but  is  the  gentleman  who  says  "  hear,  hear  "  prepared 
to  discourse  for  an  hour  on  an  uncontroversial  topic  with 
eloquence  and  vivacity  before  a  crowded  audience  ?  (Laughter.) 
If  he  is,  I  am  wiUing  to  give  place  to  him. 

The  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce  :   an  Historical 

Retrospect 

Now,  the  occasion  that  we  are  met  to  celebrate  to-night  is 
of  a  very  much  more  peaceful  character.  I  have  enumerated 
some  of  the  disabilities  under  which  I  lie  to-night,  but  I  have 
not  named  what,  after  all,  perhaps,  is  the  greatest,  that  we  are 
assembled  to  commemorate  the  centenary  of  the  Manchester 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  it  is  not  a  centenary  at  all.  I 
confess  that  when  I  ascertained  from  my  friend  the  president 
that  such  was  the  case  my  courage  almost  failed  me.     How  was 

367 


368  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

I  to  come,  in  these  days  of  epochs  and  anniversaries,  to 
celebrate  a  centenary  which  had  already  long  passed  by  ?  But 
the  gloomy  fact  of  the  situation  is  this,  that  your  centenary 
took  place,  not  in  1897,  but  in  1894.  The  Manchester  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  like  many  human  beings,  was  vague  as  to  the 
date  of  its  birth — and  only  discovered  it  recently  in  an 
accidental  exploration.  Well,  after  all,  "  better  late  than 
never."  It  is  a  good  occasion  ;  it  is  a  time  that  we  must  not 
neglect.  We  must  never  forget  the  foundation  of  the  Man- 
chester Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  it  would  have  been  better 
to  defer  the  celebration  for  ten  or  fifteen  or  twenty  years  too 
late  than  not  to  commemorate  it  at  all.  (Hear,  hear.)  The 
birth  of  the  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce  took  place 
in  wild  times  of  war  and  difficulty.  The  year  1794  found  us 
in  the  midst  of  revolution  ;  in  the  second  year  of  a  war  with 
France,  in  the  very  commencement  of  a  struggle  which  was 
destined  to  last  for  nearly  twenty  years.  I  can  hardly  imagine 
a  more  gloomy  moment  for  the  birth  of  so  peaceful  an  institu- 
tion as  this.  And  what  was  it  that  the  Manchester  Chamber 
of  Commerce  set  itself  to  do  ?  Although  it  was  patronised  by 
the  great  men  of  Manchester  of  that  day — the  Peels  and  the 
others — all  that  it  attempted  to  do,  or  at  any  rate  its  primary 
duty,  was  this,  to  establish  a  black  list  of  firms  abroad  with 
whom  it  was  not  safe  to  deal.  And  what  was  the  result  of  this 
effort  of  Manchester  in  1794  ?  That  black  Ust  contained  only 
one  name,  and  that  name  upon  consideration  was  expunged. 
I  venture  to  think  that  was  very  creditable  to  Manchester 
in  those  days.  We  all  of  us  have  our  black  Hsts.  There  is 
not  an  individual  in  this  hall  who  has  not  his  confidential 
black  Ust,  who  has  not  his  political  black  list,  who  has  not 
his  literary  black  fist,  who  has  not  his  social  black  list,  and 
who,  perhaps,  has  not  his  financial  black  list.  But  I  venture 
to  say  there  is  not  a  single  person  here  that  is  so  fortunate  as  the 
Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  has  only  one  name 
on  the  black  list  that  he  keeps  in  his  innermost  mind.  Now, 
no  one,  I  think,  could  have  augured  from  that  humble 
beginning  the  imperial  destiny,  the  cosmopoHtan  destiny, 
reserved  for  the  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce.  I  pass  over 
nearly  half  a  century  of  work,  useful  work,  employed  in  deputa- 
tions to  the  Governments  of  the  day,  employed  perpetually 
in  the  work  of  endeavouring  to  free  commerce  from  its  chains  ; 


ROSEBERY  369 

and  I  come  to  the  great  critical  epoch  of  your  history,  which 
was  December,  1838. 

Advent  of  the  Anti-Corn-Law  League 

Before  December,  1838,  two  events  had  happened  in  Man- 
chester which  were  destined  to  bear  the  most  speedy  fruit. 
In  a  small  room  over  a  stable  in  a  Manchester  hotel-yard  there 
had  met  in  October,  1838,  seven  men,  who  had  then  set  on  foot 
a  resolution  to  form  a  league,  which  should  not  be  dissolved 
till  the   com   laws  were  done  away  with.     About  the  same 
time  Mr.  Ashworth  teUs  us  in  his  history  that  he  was  walking 
with  Mr,  Cobden,  I  think  it  was  in  Liverpool — and  they  had 
been  talking  of  these  taxes,  and  Cobden  stopped  and  said,  "  I 
will  tell  you  what  it  is,  Ashworth,  we  will  use  the  Manchester 
Chamber  of  Commerce  as  a  lever  for  doing  away  with  the 
com  laws."      And  what  Cobden  said  he  usually  did  ;    so  he 
came  to  Manchester  in   December,    1838,   and  in  two  great 
meetings   he   beat   the   governing   body   of   the   Manchester 
Chamber  of   Commerce,  which  was   not   so   enhghtened   as 
himself,  and  he  got  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  to  petition  for 
a  repeal  of  the  laws  relating  to  the  importation  of  foreign 
com    and    other    foreign    articles    of    subsistence.    Now,    I 
think  that  that  occasion  reflects  undying  lustre  on  Manchester 
and  its  Chamber  of  Commerce.   Cobden  himself  said  afterwards 
that  "  just  as  Jerusalem  was  with  the  origin  of  our  faith,  and 
just  as  Mecca  was  in  the  eyes  of  the  Mahometans,  so  would 
Manchester  be  identified  in  the  eyes   of  historians   as   the 
birthplace  and  the  centre  of  the  greatest  moral  movement 
since  the  introduction  of  printing."    There  is  no  need  to  tell 
you  here  to  whom  you  owe  this  achievement.     You,  Sir,  have 
dealt  in  your  introductory  remarks  on  some  of  the  names 
that  occurred  to  you  ;   but  I   venture  to  say  that  it  is  not 
necessary  in  Manchester,  it  would  be  almost  impertinent  on  the 
part  of  a  stranger,  to  run  over  the  Homeric  list  of  names  which 
constitute  the  glory  of  this  movement.      It  would  be  still 
more  difficult   to   give   the   full   meed  of  approval  to  those 
unknown  workers,   those  unknown   givers,    who   swelled   so 
largely  the  success  of  that  movement.      There  is  one  name, 
however,  that  we  cannot  forget  to-night.     That  is  the  name 
of   the   Parliamentary  pioneer   of   the  movement,  who  was 
enabled  to  work  for  it  before  Cobden  ever  became  a  member 

34— {3171) 


370  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

of  Parliament,  who  lives  happy  among  us  in  a  green  and 
honoured  old  age,  who  is  still  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  who  still  sits  for  Wolverhampton,  the  pedestal  from 
which  he  urged  that  reform — I  mean,  of  course,  Charles  Pelham 
ViUiers.  This  movement  had  another  rare  distinction.  It 
produced  a  great  poet  and  a  great  orator.  The  poet  was 
Ebenezer  ElHott ;  the  orator  was  John  Bright.  When  one 
thinks  of  John  Bright  in  this  Free  Trade  Hall  of  Manchester, 
and  of  the  eloquence  with  which  he  has  thrilled  it,  one  almost 
feels  inchned  to  sit  down  or  to  leave  the  hall.  But  it  is 
difficult  for  anyone  who  has  had  the  honour  of  his  acquaint- 
ance not  to  pay  one  word  of  tribute  to  his  memory,  as  one 
knew  him — to  his  geniahty,  to  his  kindliness,  to  his  simplicity, 
to  his  inherent  dignity,  to  his  horror  of  all  that  was  false,  or 
cowardly,  or  untrue.  I  think  there  is  nothing  in  all  the  annals 
of  our  pohtical  history  so  completely  and  anaUoyedly  beautiful 
as  the  pohtical  brotherhood  of  Cobden  and  Bright,  the  great 
twin  brethren  who  slew  the  com  laws.  I  suppose  they  each  of 
them  were  to  some  extent  the  complement  of  each  other. 
Each  had  in  superabundance  qualities  which  thrown  into  the 
common  stock  made  an  irresistible  force.  Cobden  had  the 
sagacity,  the  persuasion,  the  initiative  ;  Bright  the  splendour 
and  the  eloquence.  And  he  had  something  else.  Bright,  as 
you  know,  was  a  Quaker,  but  he  was  the  most  pugnacious 
Quaker  that  ever  lived — and  I  think  we  may  say,  without  any 
fear  of  contradiction  from  any  member  of  that  peaceful  and 
excellent  sect,  that  the  pugnacity  of  Bright  had  something 
to  do  with  the  repeal  of  the  com  laws.  What,  then,  were 
the  weapons  with  which  this  gigantic  contest  was  carried  on  ? 
It  was  not  carried  on  with  the  arm  of  the  flesh.  "  Our  march," 
said  the  League,  in  its  farewell  manifesto,  "  has  been  stained 
by  no  blood,  and  our  success  is  sullied  by  no  tears."  No, 
they  slew  their  giant  with  the  smooth  stone  from  the  brook  of 
hard  facts,  and  there  is  no  more  formidable  weapon.  When 
they  started  on  their  cmsade  it  was  no  doubt  to  some  extent 
a  class  crusade.  It  was  the  old  crusade  carried  on  by  the  towns- 
people against  the  country  people.  They  would  not  have 
been  able  to  raise  the  vast  sums  that  they  did  for  a  purely 
abstract  and  philanthropic  enterprise.  But  remember  one 
or  two  things  in  connection  with  that.  It  very  soon  ceased  to 
be  a  class  agitation,  and  comprehended  almost  all  classes  of 


ROSEBERY  371 

the  community  before  it  had  achieved  its  victory.  The  next 
point  is  this,  that,  if  it  was  a  class  agitation,  it  was  a  class 
struggle  in  more  senses  than  one,  because  it  was  a  class  fighting 
against  a  class — ^it  was  the  commercial  class  fighting  against 
the  landed  class.  And,  in  the  third  place,  I  would  have  you 
to  remember  that  what  money  was  raised  even  by  an  appeal 
to  class  interest  was  spent,  not  in  corruption,  but  in  enhghten- 
ment.  What  it  did  was  to  bring  home  to  the  nation  the  facts 
of  its  own  situation.  Well  these  facts,  as  I  have  said,  were 
deadly  weapons. 

Condition  of  England  before  Free  Trade 

Never,  I  think,  was  the  condition  of  England  so  gloomy,  not 
even  during  the  great  war  against  France,  as  it  was  at  the  time 
when  this  agitation  was  taken  up  by  this  Chamber  of  Commerce. 
Let  me  give  you  two  or  three  facts,  very  elementary  facts, 
or  I  would  rather  say  let  me  recall  them,  because  they  are 
probably  known  to  you.  There  were  20,000  persons  in  one 
place  whose  average  earnings  were  only  1  If  d.  a  week  ;  there 
were  10,000  in  another  who  were  on  the  verge  of  starvation. 
In  Manchester  1 16  mills  and  other  works  were  standing  idle ; 
681  shops  and  offices  were  untenanted  ;  5,492  dwellings  were 
unoccupied.  In  one  district  of  Manchester  there  were  2,000 
famihes  without  a  bed  among  them,  8,666  persons  whose 
weekly  income  was  only  Is.  2^d.  In  Stockport  73,314  persons 
had  received  rehef  whose  average  weekly  income  was  9id. 
Some  grim  humourist  had  chalked  up  on  a  shutter  in  that  town 
"  Stockport  to  let."  Carlyle  sums  it  up  in  a  sentence,  "  So 
many  hundred  thousands  sit  in  the  workhouses,  another 
hundred  thousand  have  not  got  even  workhouses,  and  in 
thrifty  Scotland  itself,  in  Glasgow,  in  Edinburgh  city,  in  their 
dark  lanes,  hidden  from  all  but  the  eye  of  God,  and  the  rare 
benevolence  of  the  minister  of  God,  there  are  scenes  of  woe 
and  destitution  and  desolation  such  as  one  may  hope  the  sun 
never  saw  before  in  the  most  barbarous  regions  where  men 
dwelt."  That  was  the  condition  of  the  commercial  districts 
when  Cobden  and  his  band  of  brothers  began  their  agitation, 
and  when  they  fought  their  fight.  Then  came  at  last  the  Irish 
Famine,  that  great  object  lesson  of  the  corn  laws,  that  curse 
which  was  to  breed  a  blessing,  and  under  the  shadow  of  that 
calamity  the  victory  was  won.     WeU,  the  httle  meeting  of 


372  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

seven  people  in  a  stable  yard  in  Manchester  was  to  overthrow 
one  of  the  most  powerful  Governments  and  the  most  powerful 
interest  which  could  be  conceived  in  England.  But  what 
is  strange  and  beautiful  in  the  result  is  this — that  the  Minister 
whom  they  had  overthrown,  the  Minister  whom  they  had  com- 
pelled and  convinced  and  vanquished,  shares  the  glory  of  the 
victory  with  them.  They  were  fortunate  in  that  at  the  head 
of  the  Government  there  was  a  man  like  Sir  Robert  Peel — one 
of  the  two  Prime  Ministers  of  this  century  who  have  been  dis- 
tinguished above  all  others  by  a  true,  tender,  transparent 
poHtical  conscience.  He  was  one.  I  will  not  name  the  other. 
It  was  fortunate,  as  I  say,  for  the  League  that  Robert  Peel 
was  Prime  Minister  at  that  time,  and  it  is  certain  that  the 
name  of  Peel  will  go  down  united  with  the  name  of  Cobden  and 
the  others  as  the  fathers  and  benefactors  of  this  great 
movement. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  you  may  well  say  to  me,  "All  this 
was  long  ago,  all  this  is  done  and  achieved  for  ever ;  why 
recall  it  to  us,  who  know  it  so  well  ?  "  I  say,  on  the  other  hand, 
you  cannot  recall  it  too  often,  and  on  an  occasion  like  this  we 
should  be  almost  sinners  if  we  did  not  commemorate  it.  Stand- 
ing in  this  hall,  built  on  the  very  site  of  the  massacre  of 
Peterloo,  on  this  historic  spot,  on  this  historic  occasion,  we 
cannot  too  well  remember  what  that  fight  was  and  from  what 
it  saved  us.  I  will  tell  you  one  thing,  at  least,  from  which 
it  assuredly  did  save  you.  It  saved  you  not  merely  from 
starvation,  but  it  saved  you  from  revolution.  Mr.  Bright  in 
1845  said,  and  said  with  truth,  "  There  is  no  institution  in 
this  country — the  monarchy,  the  aristocracy,  the  Church,  or 
any  other  whatever — of  which  I  will  not  say,  attach  it  to  the 
com  laws,  and  I  will  predict  its  fate."  And  who  can  doubt 
that  at  the  time  he  spoke,  with  the  condition  of  things  that  I 
have  described,  and  with  the  revolution  of  1848,  which  shook 
every  throne  and  every  constitution  in  Europe  but  ours, 
looming  ahead,  who  can  doubt  that  if  the  beneficent  change 
of  1846  had  not  taken  place,  a  revolution  would  have  been 
the  result  in  this  country  ?  That  is  one  supreme  result. 
There  is  another,  also  a  negative  result,  which  I  can  describe 
by  a  single  distortion  of  a  sentence.  Lord  Melbourne,  on  a 
famous  occasion  in  the  House  of  Lords,  said  that  he  had  heard 
of  many  mad  things,  but,  before  God,  the  idea  of  the  repeal 


ROSEBERY  373 

of  the  com  laws  was  the  maddest  he  had  ever  heard  of. 
Well,  if  you  substitute  for  the  word  "  repeal "  the  word 
"re-enactment,"  you  have,  I  think,  one  certain  result  of  the 
agitation  of  Cobden.  Of  all  the  mad  things  we  have  heard  in 
our  days,  the  re-enactment  of  the  com  laws  is  the  maddest  we 
can  possibly  conceive. 

Now,  it  is  always  well,  I  think,  not  to  overstate  your  case. 
It  must  be  perfectly  clear  to  us  all  that,  in  the  ecstasy  and  in 
the  enthusiasm  of  this  great  revolution,  men  hoped  from  it 
more  than  it  has  been  able  to  accompUsh.  It  has  not,  for 
example,  produced  peace  and  disarmament.  I  do  not  care  to 
measure  the  extent  or  the  density  of  the  thick  war-cloud  which 
broods  over  Europe.  I  do  not  care  to  compute  the  number  of 
millions  of  armed  men  who  stand  ranged  in  battle  array,  face 
to  face,  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  like  bewitched  armies, 
waiting  only  the  evil  spirit  to  rouse  them  into  life  and 
activity — but  at  any  rate  we  can  say  this,  that  if  the  increase 
of  armies  has  gone  on  by  gigantic  strides  since  the  repeal  of 
the  com  laws,  that  is  not  due  to  Free  Trade  ;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  those  very  mihtary  preparations  have  led  those 
countries  far  from  Free  Trade  into  fiscal  errors,  as  we  believe 
them  to  be,  to  the  hampering  of  their  trade,  the  restriction  of 
their  commerce,  and  the  imposition  of  protective  duties  which 
we  believe  to  be  detrimental  to  their  industry.  Again,  it  is 
true  that  the  sanguine  expectations  of  the  promoters  of 
Free  Trade  have  not  been  realised,  because  they  have 
found  very  few  imitators  in  the  world.  But  Cobden  did  not 
demand  imitation  as  a  condition  of  success.  He  declined  to 
be  judged  by  imitation  as  a  test  of  his  success.  He  said,  "  If 
Free  Trade  be  a  good  thing  for  us  we  will  have  it.  Let  others 
take  it  if  it  be  a  good  thing  for  them  ;  if  it  be  not,  let  them  do 
without  it." 

Free  Trade  and  Agriculture 

Well,  there  is  another  point  on  which  I  think  some  of  our 
friends  think  that  Free  Trade  has  been  a  failure.  I  mean  with 
regard  to  the  agriculture  of  this  country.  I  hear  a  faint 
ripple  of  applause.  I  do  not  know  if  it  comes  from  a 
distressed  or  a  reassured  agriculturist,  but  I  am  perfectly 
certain  that  this  hall  will  be  a  building  even  more  exceptional 


374  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

than  I  think  it  is  if  it  does  not  contain  an  agriculturist  who  is 
full  of  complaints.  For,  after  all,  the  first  necessary  con- 
dition of  agriculture — and  I  say  it  not  with  a  smile,  but  in 
grim  earnest — is  that  it  always  has  complained,  that  it  always 
must  complain,  and  that  it  always  will  complain.  From  the 
times  of  Theocritus  and  Virgil,  and  even  from  further  back — 
I  suspect,  from  the  time  when  Adam  delved — agriculture  had 
been  in  a  state  of  complaint.  And  who  can  wonder  at  it  ? 
I  say  in  perfect  gravity  that  that  is  a  necessary  condition  of 
a  trade  or  calling  wliich  is  at  the  mercy  of  every  whim  and 
humour  of  Nature.  There  is  no  conceivable  weather  which 
will  suit  every  crop,  and  so  farmers  look  on  all  weathers  with 
impartial  foreboding.  What  may  secure  a  harvest  may  ruin 
roots ;  what  may  swell  a  swede  may  drown  an  oat.  Innumerable 
diseases  haunt  animals  and  crops.  A  poisonous  beast  may 
taint  the  cattle  of  a  nation  ;  a  sick  potato  may  starve  a  race. 
It  is  impossible  to  put  any  hmit  to  the  afflictions  which  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  Nature,  without  any  interference  from  art, 
harass  the  agriculturist.  When  he  has  an  abundance,  prices 
fall.  When  prices  rise,  there  is  nothing  to  sell.  You  laugh, 
but  it  is  no  laughing  matter.  I  am  a  landowner  and  a 
farmer,  and  for  such  it  is  a  long  tragedy.  And  if  you  put  aside 
even  what  Nature  has  done  as  against  the  farmer,  you  have 
besides  what  is  even  more  ruinous  :  the  increasing  means  of 
communication — the  great  steamers  that  cross  the  ocean  and 
bring  to  our  markets  the  abundant  harvests  of  Australia, 
India,  America,  and  Russia.  Farmers  are  now  not  Scottish 
or  English  or  Welsh  or  Irish,  they  are  cosmopohtan.  They 
contend  in  the  markets,  not  with  their  neighbours  or  with  those 
of  the  adjoining  counties,  but  with  distant  and  virgin  regions 
of  the  world.  Altogether,  I  confess  I  think  that  the  complaints 
of  agriculturists  are  more  well  founded  than  complaints  of 
a  class  usually  are.  Agriculture  suffers  under  Free  Trade, 
and  has  always  suffered  since  the  Garden  of  Eden,  and  will 
always  suffer.  But  the  question  is  with  us  to-night  :  Is  agri- 
culture worse  off  now  than  it  was  under  the  operation  of  the 
com  laws  ?  Now,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  farmers  are  better 
off  than  they  were  before  the  repeal  of  the  com  laws. 
They  hve  now  at  a  much  higher  standard,  they  pay  a  much 
lower  rent,  their  purchasing  power  is  vastly  increased  by  Free 
Trade.     And  what  was  the  condition  of  the  farmers  of  England 


ROSEBERY  375 

before  Free  Trade  ?  There  was  a  Committee  of  the  House  of 
Commons  that  sat  in  1836  to  consider  the  condition  of  agri- 
culture in  this  country.  It  sent  up  a  report  which  was  an 
account  of  almost  universal  ruin  and  almost  universal  insol- 
vency. From  such  counties  as  Lincoln,  Middlesex,  Surrey, 
Northampton,  and  Suffolk  there  came  the  statement  that 
farmers  were  paying  their  rent  out  of  capital.  From  Buck- 
inghamshire it  was  positively  asserted  that  a  great  many  of 
the  farmers  had  failed,  and  that  at  least  half  of  the  remainder 
were  insolvent.  Of  the  tenantry  of  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  Essex, 
and  Cambridgeshire,  the  same,  or  worse  was  testified.  They 
were  "  verging  on  insolvency — the  most  desperate  state  men 
can  be  in."  And  so  forth  ;  it  is  unnecessary  to  multiply 
monotonous  testimony. 

Well,  then,  the  next  class  that  we  have  to  consider  are  the 
labourers.  Is  it  not  perfectly  true  that  the  labourers,  though 
their  condition  is  not  what  it  should  be  in  the  agricultural 
districts  even  yet,  are  infinitely  better  off  than  they  were  before 
1846  in  wages,  in  purchasing  power,  and  in  the  dweUings  they 
inhabit  ?  Go  into  the  country  districts  on  a  Sunday,  and  you 
will  see  a  weU-dressed  population  of  labourers  and  their  fami- 
hes  that  you  can  scarcely  distinguish  from  the  best  in  the 
neighbourhood.  But  what  was  the  condition  of  things  before 
the  repeal  of  the  com  laws  ?  There  is  in  a  book  that  I 
recommend  you  to  read — if  you  have  leisure  to  read  a  work 
of  two  volumes  on  a  political  subject — Mr.  Jephson's  History 
of  the  Political  Platform,  a  most  pathetic  account,  taken  from 
the  Times  newspaper  of  that  date,  of  a  meeting  of  the  agricul- 
tural labourers  of  Wiltshire  in  January,  1846,  four  or  five 
months  before  the  repeal  of  the  com  laws  was  actually 
achieved.  Will  you  pardon  me  if  I  read  one  or  two  sentences 
from  it  ?  "  The  chairman  was  a  labourer  ;  the  speakers,  with 
the  exception  of  two,  were  labourers.  The  object  in  view  was 
to  caU  pubhc  attention  to  the  present  condition  of  the  labouring 
population  in  this  part  of  the  country,  and  to  petition  Her 
Majesty  and  the  Legislature  to  take  decisive  steps  for  the  speedy 
reUef  of  their  extreme  distress.  The  meeting  was  to  have 
been  held  in  a  large  booth  erected  in  a  field,  but  the  great 
expense  of  providing  such  accommodation  was  beyond  the 
combined  contributions  which  these  poor  people  could  spare 
from    their    very   scanty  means,    and    therefore    they   were 


376  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

compelled  to  assemble  together  in  the  cross-road  of  the  village, 
and  to  endure  the  inclemency  of  a  winter  night,  while  they 
talked  over  their  common  sufferings.  The  whole  of  the 
arrangements  and  proceedings  were  strikingly  characteristic 
of  the  occasion.  A  hurdle,  supported  by  four  stakes  driven 
into  the  ground  beneath  a  hedge  on  the  roadside,  formed  a 
narrow  and  unsteady  platform,  capable  of  supporting  only 
the  chairman  and  one  speaker  at  a  time.  .  .  .  Four  or  five 
candles,  some  in  lanthoms,  and  others  sheltered  from  the  wind 
by  the  hands  that  held  them,  threw  a  dim  and  flickering  Hght 
upon  the  groups  on  this  spot,  before  and  around  which  were 
gathered  nearly  1,000  of  the  peasantry  of  Wiltshire.  ...  In 
the  shadows  of  the  night  the  distinctive  garb  of  their  class  was 
everywhere  discernible,  and  when  the  flittering  clouds  per- 
mitted the  moon  to  shine  brightly  in  their  faces  in  them  might 
be  seen  written,  in  strong  and  unmistakable  Hues,  anxiety, 
suppHcation,  want,  hunger.  .  .  One  speaker  said  :  '  I  don't 
know  much  of  the  com  laws,  only  that  they  ha'nt  done  we 
labourers  much  good.  It  is  a  long  time  till  July  next,  before 
we  get  new  potatoes ;  and  unless  something  turns  up  for  we 
poor  creatures,  starvation  stares  us  in  the  face  on  both  hands.* 
Another  speaker  said  :  '  There  was  nothing  left  for  them  now 
but  starvation  or  Free  Trade.'  "  Well,  I  do  not  think  that 
that  description  requires  any  enlargement,  or  that  anybody 
who  reads  it  will  doubt  that  the  condition  of  the  agricultural 
labourer  was  infinitely  worse  before  the  repeal  of  the  com 
laws  than  in  our  time. 

Then  there  are  the  landlords.  I  feel  hke  the  man  in 
the  play,  who  says,  "  Ah  !  thou  hast  touched  me  nearly." 
But  I  will  only  make  one  remark  upon  the  landlords.  Their 
rents  have  undoubtedly  fallen  since  the  means  of  communica- 
tion have  so  greatly  improved  between  foreign  countries  and 
ourselves  ;  but  I  have  only  one  comment  to  make  upon  that, 
and  it  is  this,  that  the  interests  of  the  nation  cannot 
be  sacrificed  to  the  interests  of  a  class — and  though  I  feel 
the  deepest  sympathy  with  the  sufferings  of  many  landlords 
whose  cases  I  know,  yet  I  believe  they  would  be  the  first,  in  a 
spirit  of  patriotism,  to  deny  any  claim  that  the  nation  should 
be  sacrificed  to  them.  I   must    also    make   one  further 

remark :     that,  so  far  as  we   can   judge  from  inquiry,  the 
condition    of   agriculture    in    foreign    countries,   in    spite    of 


ROSEBERY  377 

bounties  and  in  spite  of  protective  duties,  is  not  much 
better,  and  in  some  cases  is  certainly  worse,  than  the 
condition  of  agriculture  in  Great  Britain  under  Free  Trade. 

Commercial  Results  of  Free  Trade 

But  there  is  one  point  as  to  which  the  results  of  Free  Trade 
are  absolutely  unmistakable,  and  they  are  the  commercial 
results.  May  I  read  to  you  two  sets  of  figures,  which  will 
show  this  in  a  moment.  In  1846 — the  year  when  the  com 
laws  were  repealed — the  total  imports  of  this  country  were 
about  ;^6,000,000  sterling  in  value.  They  are  believed  to 
have  been  somewhat  overrated,  but  certainly  were  not  under- 
rated. In  1896,  after  fifty  years'  operations  of  Free  Trade, 
they  are  £441,802,000,  showing  an  increase  of  £365,855,000, 
or  481  per  cent.  The  total  exports  in  1846  were  £74,000,000  ; 
in  1896  they  were  £296,370,000,  showing  an  increase  of 
£222,250,000,  or  300  per  cent.  The  exports  of  British  and 
Irish  products  in  1846  were  £57,786,000,  nearly  £58,000,000 ; 
in  1896  they  were  over  £240,000,000  or  £182,000,000  more, 
showing  an  increase  of  315  per  cent.  ;  and  the  exports  of 
foreign  and  colonial  productions  were  £16,296,000  in  1846,  and 
£56,233,000  in  1896,  showing  an  increase  of  about  £40,000,000  or 
245  per  cent.  Now  any  comment  on  those  figures  would  rob 
them  of  their  importance  and  their  weight.  They  are 
more  like  a  fairy  tale  than  the  sort  of  statistics  that  they 
turn  out  from  the  Board  of  Trade  ;  but  they  are  literally  and 
exactly  true,  and  they  are  largely  due  to  the  work  which  was 
done  by  ViUiers,  Cobden,  Bright,  and  Peel. 

But  there  is  one  effect  of  Free  Trade  which  may  seem 
strange  and  paradoxical  to  you,  but  on  which  I,  for  my  part, 
lay  the  very  greatest  stress.  I  beheve  that  one  of  the  most 
important  effects  of  Free  Trade  has  been  the  maintenance 
and  the  consolidation  of  the  British  Empire.  Now,  I  fear 
this  may  seem  strange  and  paradoxical  to  those  who  have 
been  brought  up  in  the  belief,  which  is  commonly  asserted,  that 
Cobden,  and  what  is  called  the  Manchester  School,  were  hostile 
or  indifferent  to  the  existence  of  the  Empire.  But  Cobden's 
own  testimony  on  this  point  is  simple  and  direct  enough.  He 
says,  "  People  tell  you  I  want  to  abandon  our  colonies,  but  I 
say,  '  Do  you  intend  to  hold  your  colonies  by  the  sword,  by 
armies  and  ships  of  war  ?  '     That  is  not  a  permanent  hold 


378  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

upon  them.  I  want  to  hold  them  by  their  affections." 
I  think  in  that  definition  you  must  allow  the  word  affections 
to  include  the  word  interests,  because  national  affections,  which 
are  not  based  on  national  interests  because  national,  are  apt 
to  be  sterile  plants.  But  I  think  that  if  you  allow  me  that 
amplification,  and  allow  that  national  affections  shall  include 
for  this  purpose  national  interests,  you  have  a  true  and  com- 
plete definition  of  the  best  foundation  of  the  British  Empire. 
Under  that  policy,  at  any  rate,  the  Empire  has  marched  with 
seven-leagued  boots,  until  in  this  year  of  grace  we  have  been 
privileged  to  witness  a  moving  panorama  of  empire,  and,  what 
is  more,  to  receive  the  proposals  of  Sir  Wilfrid  Laurier,  offering 
on  behalf  of  Canada  commercial  facihties  to  the  mother  country 
for  the  avowed  purpose  of  drawing  us  closer  and  closer  together. 

Free  Trade  and  the  Empire 

But  I  will  explain  in  a  moment  to  you  why  it  is  that,  in  my 
opinion,  Free  Trade  has  had  so  important  an  effect  in  main- 
taining and  in  consohdating  this  Empire.  In  the  first  place, 
it  has  produced  the  wealth  that  has  enabled  us  to  sustain  the 
burden,  and  the  burden  of  an  Empire  like  ours  must  always 
be  great  as  regards  expenditure  of  energy  and  of  money. 
Without  Free  Trade  I  venture  to  say  that  we  should  have  been 
wholly  unable  to  sustain  it.  Tn  1841,  when  Sir  Robert  Peel 
came  into  power,  we  were  staggering  under  a  much  less  burden 
than  we  bear  easily  now,  and  staggering  under  it  with  deficits 
and  with  despair.  We  were  then  in  a  condition  which  bordered 
on  revolution,  and  revolution  means  the  dismemberment  of 
our  Empire.  I  venture,  then,  to  say  that  both  on  the  ground 
of  maintenance  and  as  having  averted  revolution,  Free  Trade 
has  rendered  enormous  services  to  our  Empire. 

But  these  are  not  the  sole  services  that  Free  Trade  has 
rendered  us.  In  my  judgment,  whatever  that  may  be  worth, 
Free  Trade  has  preserved  the  Empire.  The  colonies,  indeed, 
have  not  travelled  very  far  in  our  wake  with  regard  to  our 
commercial  policy.  They  know  their  own  business  best,  and 
will  work  out  their  own  salvation  on  their  own  lines.  But  I 
have  an  illustrious  authority — perhaps  the  most  illustrious 
outside  these  islands  and  inside  the  Empire — to  sustain  my 
view  as  to  the  preserving  force  of  Free  Trade  upon  our  Empire. 
Sir  Wilfrid  Laurier  said   the  other  day  :    '*  There  are  parties 


ROSEBERY  379 

who  hope  to  maintain  the  British  Empire  upon  lines  of  restricted 
trade.  If  the  British  Empire  is  to  be  maintained,  it  can  only 
be  upon  the  most  absolute  freedom,  pohtical  and  commercial. 
In  building  up  this  great  enterprise,  to  deviate  from  the  prin- 
ciple of  freedom  will  be  to  so  much  weaken  the  ties  and  bonds 
which  now  hold  it  together."  Well,  that  is  a  view  that 
I  hold,  and  that  I  beheve  you  hold  in  this  hall.  I  believe 
that  anything  in  the  direction  of  an  Imperial  commercial 
league  would  weaken  this  Empire  internally,  and  excite  the 
permanent  hostihty  of  the  whole  world.  Now,  I  begin  to  feel 
that  in  approaching  this  subject  I  ought  to  tread  tenderly  and 
delicately,  because,  though  the  proposition  has  been  often  made, 
it  has  been  recently  made  from  a  political  point  of  view,  and 
therefore  I  ought  perhaps  to  avoid  it  altogether.  I  treat  it, 
however,  not  with  regard  to  its  recent  development — which 
is  only  its  latest — but  as  regards  the  doctrine  which  has  been 
held  forth  for  many  years  by  men  of  both  political  parties, 
that  such  a  league  is  eminently  desirable.  I  tread  delicately 
near  the  subject  for  another  reason,  because  I  beUeve  that  the 
idea  is  dead.  I  tread  near  it  with  the  reverence  due  to  a  corpse. 
Now,  I  respect  all  serious  proposals  for  binding  our  Empire 
more  closely  together.  A  great  part  of  my  hfe  I  have  been 
studying  those  proposals,  and  I  respect  their  motive  and 
try  to  support  them,  but  this  particular  proposal,  I  believe, 
would  have  a  directly  contrary  effect  to  that  which  its 
promoters  claim  for  it.  In  the  first  place,  it  would  be  a 
disturbance  of  Free  Trade.  Free  Trade  need  not  be  con- 
sidered an  idol  or  a  fetish,  but  it  is  at  all  events  the 
system  on  which  our  commercial  greatness  has  grown 
up  and  developed,  and  he  would  be  a  rash  man  that 
would  endeavour  to  lay  hands  upon  it.  In  the  next  place,  the 
proposal,  if  I  understand  it  rightly,  would  tend  to  interpose 
checks  upon  the  free  import  of  the  food  of  the  people.  I 
beheve  that  that  is  absolutely  impracticable,  but  that  if  it 
were  practicable  and  were  done  in  the  name  of  the  Empire, 
it  would  only  succeed  in  making  the  Empire  odious  to  the 
working  classes  of  this  country.  And  there  is  another 
objection,  not  less  fatal — although  it  is  external  and  not 
internal. 

Gentlemen,  I  think  it  must  have  occurred  to  you  that  such 
an  Empire  as  ours  cannot  be  built  up  without  exciting  great 


380  FAMOUS  SPEECHES 

jealousies.  The  aggrandisement  of  nations  is  something  like 
the  aggrandisement  of  individuals.  If  you  see  a  person  who 
was  very  poor  suddenly  blossom  out  with  a  prodigious  fortune 
you  are  apt  to  envy  him,  and  further  to  beheve  that  that  for- 
tune may  not  have  been  too  honestly  acquired.  I  suspect 
that  something  of  the  same  sensation  comes  over  foreign 
nations  when  they  look  at  the  chart  of  the  world  and  see  how 
largely  the  British  Empire  bulks  in  it.  That  may  be  the 
reason — I  know  of  no  other,  and  certainly  of  no  better — 
that  may  be  the  reason  for  a  fact  which  you  must  regard 
as  one  of  the  most  sahent  factors  in  our  foreign  policy, 
in  our  Imperial  policy — and  in  our  relations  with  foreign 
nations — I  mean  the  general  envy  and  suspicion  with  which 
we  are  regarded  abroad.  Nothing  is  more  amazing  to  the 
ordinary  Briton  than  to  discover  the  deep-rooted  suspicion 
of  our  motives,  of  our  pohcy,  and  of  our  action  which  is  enter- 
tained towards  us  in  foreign  countries  ;  a  feeUng,  no  doubt, 
with  which  we  have  sometimes  regarded  other  nations,  but 
which  we  are  completely  stupified  at  discovering  with  respect 
to  ourselves.  You,  I  daresay,  can  scarcely  understand  it ; 
you  are  conscious,  as  citizens  of  a  great  nation,  of  high,  noble, 
and  even  chivalrous  aims,  and  you  cannot  understand  that  in 
pursuing  these  aims  the  foreign  observer  is  apt  to  suspect  or 
think  that  he  detects  a  trick.  Well,  I  cannot  lay  too  much 
stress  on  this  point  in  regard  to  this  subject.  I  am  perfectly 
certain  of  this,  and  I  think  all  your  friends  who  travel  will 
tell  you  the  same,  that  we  lie,  for  various  reasons,  under  the 
deep  and  abiding  suspicion  of  foreign  nations.  That  is  a 
central  fact ;  and  under  the  circumstances  I  ask  you  whether, 
with  your  extended  dominions,  and  with  all  your  Uabihties, 
it  is  not  well,  while  you  walk  strongly,  to  walk  warily 
upon  the  path  of  empire  ?  Well,  apply  this  fact  to  the 
proposal  to  which  I  have  been  alluding.  Suppose,  in  the  face 
of  this  suspicion,  that  it  were  proposed  to  estabUsh  an  Imperial 
Customs  Union.  I  beheve  that  to  be  an  impossibility,  but 
supposing  it  were  possible,  it  would  be  something  which  would 
place  all  the  nations  of  the  world  in  direct  antagonism  to  it — 
it  is  something  which,  if  possible,  they  would  all  combine  to 
destroy.  We  have,  of  course,  a  perfect  right  to  do  this,  but, 
though  aU  things  may  be  lawful  to  us  within  our  own  borders, 
all  tilings  are  not  expedient ;    and  I  am  discussing  this  now 


ROSEBERY  381 

not  as  a  question  of  right,  but  as  a  question  of  policy.  My 
belief  on  this  point  is  confirmed  by  something  that  happened 
this  year.  You  will  remember  that  this  year  we  denounced 
our  commercial  treaties  with  Germany  and  with  Belgium — 
an  innocent  step,  a  simple  step,  and  rendered  a  necessary  step 
under  the  happy  impulse  of  Canada.  But  throughout  Europe, 
in  every  newspaper,  in  every  country,  there  was  a  note  of  alarm 
at  what  we  thought  was  an  obvious  and  ordinary  proceeding. 
They  seemed  to  see  an  important  departure  involved  ;  they 
seemed  to  see  something  portentous  and  menacing.  And  if 
that  were  the  case — as  it  was — with  regard  to  the  denouncing 
of  two  commercial  treaties,  I  ask  you  what  the  feeling  of  mis- 
trust and  suspicion  would  have  been  had  we  established 
instead  an  Imperial  Customs  Union  ?  Remember,  gentlemen, 
that  in  these  later  days  every  savage,  every  swamp,  every 
desert,  is  the  object  of  eager  annexation  or  competition  ; 
and  what  in  that  state  of  circumstances  would  have  been  the 
feeling  created  by  the  development  of  a  new  empire — for  under 
these  new  commercial  conditions  it  would  be  new — not  like 
the  Russian  Empire,  local,  though  vast,  but  a  world-wide 
empire,  surrounded  by  a  Customs  rampart,  a  challenge  to 
every  nation,  a  distinct  defiance  to  the  world  ?  On  the  other 
hand,  what  is  the  present  state  of  circumstances  ?  Our 
Empire  is  peace,  it  makes  peace,  it  means  peace,  it  aims 
at  peace.  Its  extension  under  Free  Trade  is  for  the 
benefit  of  all  nations.  Its  motto  is  the  old  one  of  the 
volunteers  : — "  Defence,  not  defiance.'*  A  scattered  Empire 
like  ours,  founded  upon  commerce  and  cemented  by 
commerce,  an  Empire  well  defended,  so  as  not  to  invite 
wanton  aggression,  can  mean  and  make  for  nothing  but 
peace.  We  have  on  our  side,  in  the  long  run,  all  that  makes 
for  peace  and  free  commerce  in  the  world.  That  is  a  fact  that 
all  nations  know  in  their  hearts.  It  is  a  fact  that  no  wise 
statesman  can  hope  to  disregard.  But  an  empire  spread  all 
over  the  world,  with  a  uniform  barrier  of  a  Customs  Union 
presented  everywhere,  would  be,  in  comparison — I  will  not  say 
an  empire  of  war,  but  a  perpetual  menace,  or,  at  least,  a 
perpetual  irritation. 

I  say,  then,  that  our  Empire  is  peace — that  our  Empire 
as  at  present  constituted,  under  the  wise  guidance  of  a  Free 
Trade    pohcy,  makes    for    peace,    for    commerce,    and    for 


382  FAMOUS   SPEECHES 

enlightenment.  Men  in  these  days  want  little  more  than  that ; 
they  are  lucky  if  they  get  so  much.  But  that  is  not  all.  If 
you  want  your  foundations  to  be  sounder  still,  if  you  wish 
to  dig  deeper  and  broader  and  stronger  the  foundations  of 
this  world-wide  Empire,  the  home  of  all  EngUsh  peoples,  you 
want  something  more  even  than  peace  and  commerce  and 
enlightenment.  You  must  take  care  that  the  comer-stones 
of  that  majestic  structure  are  not  simply  peace,  but  honour  ; 
honour  and  justice,  and  fair  deahng  to  all,  of  whatever  colour, 
who  live  within  our  borders.  We  as  a  nation  have,  I  think, 
rarely  been  so  fortunate  as  to  obtain  the  affection  of  the  sub- 
ject races  over  which  we  rule,  but  we  have  at  least  earned  their 
respect — we  have  earned  their  respect  for  upright  government, 
for  scrupulous  truth,  for  straightforward  deahng  as  between 
governor  and  governed.  If  we  maintain  this  high  standard 
of  energy  and  patriotism,  I  fear  nothing  for  that  Empire 
of  which  we  are  privileged  to  form  a  part.  But  we  have 
the  example  of  other  empires  before  us,  and  if  through 
any  lapse  on  our  part,  if  for  any  reason  whatever  it  be  written 
in  the  inscrutable  decrees  of  Fate  that  we  are  to  follow  their 
example  and  to  crumble  and  disappear,  we  can  at  least  resolve 
this — that  we  will  leave  behind  us  a  monument  more  splendid 
and  more  durable  than  any  constructed  by  the  Caesars  and  the 
Pharaohs — the  memory  of  an  empire  of  which  the  mottoes 
and  the  comer-stones  were  honour,  and  justice,  and  peace. 
These,  gentlemen,  I  venture  to  think,  are  the  teachings  of  this 
hall  and  of  this  occasion. 


THE   END 


Printed  by  Sir  Isaac  Pitman  &■  Sons,  Ltd.,  Baih 
(2171) 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


RIXID  LD  ur?i 


FEB    9197a 


DC 


Form  L9-Series  4939 


PR  132 3.       P281F 


AA      000  296  946    7 


